Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons. Same goes for other abilities like Repair, Transfusion.
Serious Issue with zerg change for selecting larvae: If you have no larvae available, hitting S to select larvae now selects all eggs instead. Well just about every player waiting for new larvae to spawn, which is like all the damn time, spams S to select it asap, unfortunately now it will constantly select eggs forcing you to keep reselecting hatchery every time, it's really frustrating.. enough so that it makes me and other zerg players lose the desire to play zerg right now.
COOL BUG FIXES: Right clicking somewhere while holding CTRL no longer gives the Attack-Move command, it just Moves. Often people would re-bind hotkeys while trying to run away and it would Attack-Move and suicide instead.
drone bug where if you tell it to move right after it starts to morph into a building, it cancels the building (some resources lost) is now fixed.
new bug all banelings, overseers, broodlords that hatch are rallied to hatchery's rally point -_- (imagine that in Broodwar.. lurkers hatching and then automatically moving back to hatch's rally point??)
i think the only way to edit sounds/music would be to modify the MPQ files now. because they seemed to change the folder pathing to the exact name of the mpq file which makes me unable to create a folder with that same name like base.sc2assets (in mods\liberty.sc2mod). please someone show me another way
Neural Parasite casts faster (tentacle shoots out quicker)
Can now Bind Locations like you could in SC1. CTRL + F5 - F8 binds the camera location, F5-F8 recalls those locations. useful for rally points, warp-in, mule'ing, etc.
Zerg buildings now bleed when low HP Protoss buildings now have little bolts of electricity flash around when low HP AND low/empty shields (in BW, the blue flames always showed even if shields fully regenerated)
(1) the bar indicating the procedure of larva spawn now goes from left to right.
(2) it adds another bar for hatch/lair/hive upgrate. In the previous version it just replaces the larva spawn bar.
uh oh a reaper/DT/etc is coming! cancel zealot/immortal and build stalker/observer for full resource return and no waiting involved, unlike previous egg mechanics.
* apparently this allows for a major exploit to get extra larvae to spawn while 3 eggs are morphing, then canceling the eggs and getting more larvae, allowing players to continuously increase larva count, allowing for some insanely strong zergling rushes
Colossus can no longer walk through/over force field
Orbital command scanner sweep graphical change hydralisk/thor/zerglings/zealots can now /dance and /cheer
8 new player colors (possibly only accessable by map editor? dunno, depends on max # of players in a multiplayer game)
a window now pops up showing the countdown to being revealed (25 sec), when you lose all of your town halls
all types of units now have a Rank description, like Disciple, Predator, General, etc. As units get more kills they go up in rank, cool stuff! (just for look, doesn't change stats)
creep tumor seems to spread creep faster, not 100% sure new creep tumor texture, new baneling egg morphing texture.
health bars no longer turn yellow if they lose any damage at all. now they stay greenish while theyre at high HP
All zerg buildings now have animations for whenever they are researching/upgrading/building anything. often times they just move around faster
new mouse cursors for each race
the preview of any structure before it is morphed by zerg, now is no longer translucent, it looks exactly the same as if the structure was finished.
when you tell a spire to morph into a greater spire, there's a totally sweet animation!
new hydralisk range upgrade icon. (used to have the same one as Roach Burrowed Movement upgrade)
new texture for Fleet Beacon. high templar warping in looks different
hellion's flame is now blue, it may be because i researched the Pre-Igniter upgrade is what I'm guessing
ghost academy now animates while it's doing stuff, or did it always? (cybernetics core still does not sadly)
i'll update as I find more
Zerg decals show around Spawning Pool and hatcheries:
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
On April 23 2010 07:08 Sent wrote: Poll makes no sense
It does, if he means "now that you can't click the icon it's too hard to use it effectively. do you agree that it needs to change somehow now that zerg is so hard to macro properly?"
On April 23 2010 07:03 Zelniq wrote: the most major change I've found, that's extremely detrimental:
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
They must have done this to balance the zerg and protoss macro mechanics with the terran's mule which was the only mechanic which actually required you to go back to your base. I dont think I like that change though.
I don't understand people... for years they cry about MBS making it so you don't have to go back to your base as often and when blizzard puts something that forces them to do that they cry some more? And as mentioned, it pretty much evens P and Z out with T in regards to macro mechanics... mechanics .
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
Isn't this a good change? Now it requires slighty more effort to do this in the middle of a game. But I've never clicked the icons anyway. Always double-pressing the group button for my Nexuses/Hatcheries to use Chrono Boost/Spawn Larvae.
On April 23 2010 07:08 Sent wrote: Poll makes no sense
It does, if he means "now that you can't click the icon it's too hard to use it effectively. do you agree that it needs to change somehow now that zerg is so hard to macro properly?"
I voted no. :p
lol well the kid wants there to be tension between the Queen's abilities, which would make Zerg more difficult to macro. Blizz made Zerg more difficult to macro in a different way
On April 23 2010 07:03 Zelniq wrote: the most major change I've found, that's extremely detrimental:
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
They must have done this to balance the zerg and protoss macro mechanics with the terran's mule which was the only mechanic which actually required you to go back to your base. I dont think I like that change though.
You only had to do that once every two times a Zerg or Protoss used spawn larvae/chronoboost, though...
On April 23 2010 07:03 Zelniq wrote: the most major change I've found, that's extremely detrimental:
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
They must have done this to balance the zerg and protoss macro mechanics with the terran's mule which was the only mechanic which actually required you to go back to your base. I dont think I like that change though.
Yea that just doesn't make sense, why would they want all 3 macro mechanics to require similar amounts of attention???
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
That is a good change..
If this is true then it single handedly pushes away all the casual/lower apm players from enjoying the game with arbitrary physical skill cap to succeed.
If any single change could push away new players from sticking with the game its this.
Yay, my stubborness to refuse to bind hatch+queen to the same key triumphs!
Honestly, if you're fast enough, having to take the extra 0.2 seconds to bounce back to base and larva spawn is a good thing. It allows you to check for idle units, spot backstabs, and just keep a better control of what's going on.
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
That is a good change..
If this is true then it single handedly pushes away all the casual/lower apm players from enjoying the game with arbitrary physical skill cap to succeed.
Casual/lower apm players don't need success to enjoy the game. Only competitive players need to be successful to enjoy the game :o
my favorite part about this is zerg is dominating asian servers.
Blizz recognizes that and has actually complained about this behind closed doors.
next patch comes out: Zerg gets buffed.
WHAT?
I mean I'm not really complaining because I don't think these are huge improvements.. but they certainly didn't do anything to help the asian server rofl.
On April 23 2010 07:08 Sent wrote: Poll makes no sense
It does, if he means "now that you can't click the icon it's too hard to use it effectively. do you agree that it needs to change somehow now that zerg is so hard to macro properly?"
I voted no. :p
lol well the kid wants there to be tension between the Queen's abilities, which would make Zerg more difficult to macro. Blizz made Zerg more difficult to macro in a different way
I would love it if "Spawn Larva Complete" or something was added to the action list so that you can hit space to bounce back to the hatch when you get that message, would be good nuff =)
Still im totally fine with checking the energy of my queen(s) and now hitting F1 to go to my hatch
On April 23 2010 07:13 Dingo_egret wrote: I don't understand people... for years they cry about MBS making it so you don't have to go back to your base as often and when blizzard puts something that forces them to do that they cry some more? And as mentioned, it pretty much evens P and Z out with T in regards to macro mechanics... mechanics .
Well no. Terran can recall all mules from multiple command centers to one mineral field. Zerg needs to go to the location of all hatcheries to inject larvae into all of them.
On April 23 2010 07:09 AncienTs wrote: wait... no more hotkeying protoss buildings to nexus for chronoboost!!???
wow.. thats really gay.. they need to make it 30 sec again or stack 2.. Its really gets harder to use it later in game when you have to go back to specific map locations to use it every 15 or so realtime seconds on specific buildings...
On April 23 2010 07:03 Zelniq wrote: the most major change I've found, that's extremely detrimental:
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
They must have done this to balance the zerg and protoss macro mechanics with the terran's mule which was the only mechanic which actually required you to go back to your base. I dont think I like that change though.
Yea that just doesn't make sense, why would they want all 3 macro mechanics to require similar amounts of attention???
ITS BLASPHEMY I TELL YOU!
If that's the case, then halve the duration of MULEs and make it require 25 energy instead. And if you want to compare it spawn larvae, make it so that you can only have 1 MULE per CC so you can't spam 4 MULEs if a CC has 100 energy.
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
That is a good change..
If this is true then it single handedly pushes away all the casual/lower apm players from enjoying the game with arbitrary physical skill cap to succeed.
Casual/lower apm players don't need success to enjoy the game. Only competitive players need to be successful to enjoy the game :o
I agree with Senx. This will drive new players away leaving Starcraft 2 just for us devoted fans.
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
That is a good change..
If this is true then it single handedly pushes away all the casual/lower apm players from enjoying the game with arbitrary physical skill cap to succeed.
Casual/lower apm players don't need success to enjoy the game. Only competitive players need to be successful to enjoy the game :o
You beat me to me it.. i would alter your post though and say:
Casual/lower apm players don't need to find the most optimal way to play the game to enjoy the game. Only competitive players need to find the most optimal way of playing the game to give them the greatest chance of success = enjoyment.
On April 23 2010 07:10 QueueQueue wrote: Now the other races have to go back to their base like Terran?
IMBALANCE!
yeah cus as someone else mentioned, you have to cast mule only half as often as zerg/toss has to cast spawn larva/chrono boost. also you totally have more ccs than zerg has hatches in most games!! Lets face it, using Mule perfectly is now much easier compared to spawn larva/chrono.
On April 23 2010 07:03 Zelniq wrote: the most major change I've found, that's extremely detrimental:
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
They must have done this to balance the zerg and protoss macro mechanics with the terran's mule which was the only mechanic which actually required you to go back to your base. I dont think I like that change though.
Yea that just doesn't make sense, why would they want all 3 macro mechanics to require similar amounts of attention???
I can't understand this. Why did they change the chronoboost on icons? I used it for everything. It will be hard for me to change to a new (slower) way. =(
Its not that bad. Just group all your queens into one group/ hotkey.
Then when you want to spawn larva you have a few choices after selecting that group, lets say queens on #4.
Use backspace to cycle through hatches, hit 4, spawn larva.
Put hatches on 5: then its " 5, (tab if needed), 4, spawn.
Or using cam keys, 4 to select queens, Fkey for location, spawn.
---------------------- Also, remember that when using the queens (or chronos) as a group, and casting, that the closest queen to the target (with eng) will go and cast. Which is great when you are at 3+ bases.
Its my guess that blizz never intended the portraits to work that way, but its a small loss.
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
That is a good change..
If this is true then it single handedly pushes away all the casual/lower apm players from enjoying the game with arbitrary physical skill cap to succeed.
Casual/lower apm players don't need success to enjoy the game. Only competitive players need to be successful to enjoy the game :o
I agree with Senx. This will drive new players away leaving Starcraft 2 just for us devoted fans.
I'm so happy you're finally leaving the community!! cya~~!
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
That is a good change..
If this is true then it single handedly pushes away all the casual/lower apm players from enjoying the game with arbitrary physical skill cap to succeed.
Casual/lower apm players don't need success to enjoy the game. Only competitive players need to be successful to enjoy the game :o
I agree with Senx. This will drive new players away leaving Starcraft 2 just for us devoted fans.
I'm so happy you're finally leaving the community!! cya~~!
On April 23 2010 07:03 Zelniq wrote: the most major change I've found, that's extremely detrimental:
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
They must have done this to balance the zerg and protoss macro mechanics with the terran's mule which was the only mechanic which actually required you to go back to your base. I dont think I like that change though.
Yea that just doesn't make sense, why would they want all 3 macro mechanics to require similar amounts of attention???
ITS BLASPHEMY I TELL YOU!
If that's the case, then halve the duration of MULEs and make it require 25 energy instead. And if you want to compare it spawn larvae, make it so that you can only have 1 MULE per CC so you can't spam 4 MULEs if a CC has 100 energy.
Yeah, this is the major issue I have with spawn larva. If there's some intense fighting and my multitasking breaks down as T or P, and my OC / Nexus builds up to 100 energy, I can just go use it up all at once. Sure, it's not as perfectly efficient and optimal as I'd like it to be, and it's something I can work on, but I at least get some benefit.
If my multitasking breaks down as Z and I get a queen with 100 energy, that's 4 larva injections that I'll never get to use (16 larva wasted!). Sure, I have creep tumor--which is nice for the first one or two to connect your bases and start spreading into the map--but that'll only handle one or two missed injections at most.
Clicking the wireframes made it a lot easier to get your injections done often and on time, but I think what would REALLY help is some sort of notification to the player when a larva injection round finishes. If it had an announcement, it would be very close to macroing workers out of 2-3 bases in the pre-MBS and pre-automine days, which was certainly not that hard for fast players (though of course it takes a lot of player time).
Most true noobs are probably not even using hotkeys correctly. What makes you think that a minor detail that they don't already use will push them away?
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
That is a good change..
If this is true then it single handedly pushes away all the casual/lower apm players from enjoying the game with arbitrary physical skill cap to succeed.
Casual/lower apm players don't need success to enjoy the game. Only competitive players need to be successful to enjoy the game :o
I agree with Senx. This will drive new players away leaving Starcraft 2 just for us devoted fans.
I'm so happy you're finally leaving the community!! cya~~!
Your banning me for that?
I didn't know Nony had the power to ban, All hail nony :D
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
That is a good change..
If this is true then it single handedly pushes away all the casual/lower apm players from enjoying the game with arbitrary physical skill cap to succeed.
If any single change could push away new players from sticking with the game its this.
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
That is a good change..
If this is true then it single handedly pushes away all the casual/lower apm players from enjoying the game with arbitrary physical skill cap to succeed.
Casual/lower apm players don't need success to enjoy the game. Only competitive players need to be successful to enjoy the game :o
I agree with Senx. This will drive new players away leaving Starcraft 2 just for us devoted fans.
I'm so happy you're finally leaving the community!! cya~~!
WRT to new music, looks like there is new battle.net theme, more or less the same as the original, with a much more edgier electric guitar. More distortion, less of the "clean" guitar sound.
1 new Protoss theme and a 2 second longer version of the old theme.
All the Terran themes (5 of them) seem to be slightly touched up, not sure of the exact changes, they sound more or less the same, but with a few minor changes here and there.
Zerg themes are unchanged.
edit: Not sure if this is a change, but there appears to be a new set of UI sound files for the zerg ui voices, quick listen indicates that they sound more or less the same. However there is a voice over that indicates when a Queen has spawned, not sure if this existed in a previous patch though.
On April 23 2010 07:03 Zelniq wrote: the most major change I've found, that's extremely detrimental:
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
They must have done this to balance the zerg and protoss macro mechanics with the terran's mule which was the only mechanic which actually required you to go back to your base. I dont think I like that change though.
Yea that just doesn't make sense, why would they want all 3 macro mechanics to require similar amounts of attention???
ITS BLASPHEMY I TELL YOU!
If that's the case, then halve the duration of MULEs and make it require 25 energy instead. And if you want to compare it spawn larvae, make it so that you can only have 1 MULE per CC so you can't spam 4 MULEs if a CC has 100 energy.
That is accurate.. You can just spam several mules on a same mineral field but you cant use more than 1 chrono on a building.. You have to wait until first is done.. Terran mule macro is easy.. If you miss it it doesnt matter.. You want to have enough for scans at any time anyway..
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
That is a good change..
If this is true then it single handedly pushes away all the casual/lower apm players from enjoying the game with arbitrary physical skill cap to succeed.
Casual/lower apm players don't need success to enjoy the game. Only competitive players need to be successful to enjoy the game :o
They could have just made mule work in a similar way to spawn larva where the mule would go to a mineral patch close to the CC its next too.
I don't see how physical barriers to simply keep the race running are ever needed in an rts, microing an army is fun, microing buildings isn't fun and is just going to mean rather then being all excited about your army your looking and buildings that do nothing which doesn't stir excitement.
Its just giving an advantage to experienced(years) players who have good mechanics that new players won't be able to compete with until they learn those same skills over years
Totally disagree with the 'this will drive away casual players' argument. How the hell will a bgh for fun style player who uses his right hand (mouse) only will be driven away.. He won't!
On April 23 2010 07:03 Zelniq wrote: the most major change I've found, that's extremely detrimental:
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
They must have done this to balance the zerg and protoss macro mechanics with the terran's mule which was the only mechanic which actually required you to go back to your base. I dont think I like that change though.
Yea that just doesn't make sense, why would they want all 3 macro mechanics to require similar amounts of attention???
ITS BLASPHEMY I TELL YOU!
If that's the case, then halve the duration of MULEs and make it require 25 energy instead. And if you want to compare it spawn larvae, make it so that you can only have 1 MULE per CC so you can't spam 4 MULEs if a CC has 100 energy.
That is accurate.. You can just spam several mules on a same mineral field but you cant use more than 1 chrono on a building.. You have to wait until first is done.. Terran mule macro is easy.. If you miss it it doesnt matter.. You want to have enough for scans at any time anyway..
Terran's more forgiving macro mechanic is mitigated somewhat by the tension of making hard decisions early on, on how to spend your energy. Z and P don't really have to deal with that tension.
On April 23 2010 07:03 Zelniq wrote: the most major change I've found, that's extremely detrimental:
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
I hope this actually isn't a bug but a intentional change. The more APM you have the greater the reward should be.
On April 23 2010 07:28 Jyvblamo wrote:Terran's more forgiving macro mechanic is mitigated somewhat by the tension of making hard decisions early on, on how to spend your energy. Z and P don't really have to deal with that tension.
Besides Z having to spend 25 energy ONE TIME to cover the entire map in Creep. I still gotta say I don't like that mechanic.
Actually, come to think of it, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to limit the CC to 1 mule per OC at a time. That way you have to be paying attention to your macro. If you screw up and lose mule mining time, you at least have comsat scans that you can use instead (or supply drops).
It also helps deal with some of those late game issues where a T takes a new base and can instantly call down 8 mules to it to mine out a good portion of it in 90 seconds (not sure if this will prove to be a long term balance issue or not, but it's something to note).
Damn! I am so used to the spawn larva thing.. It would be equivelent if terrans could only select one CC at a time imo. But I will manage, SC style zerg hotkeys here I come!
Do I need to point out that "casual" players tend to not be in the beta. So.
1. Casuals won't know it was ever there. 2. By the time sc2 hits stores I think they will have it figured out, considering that if blizz wants money, they have to make the game accessible to a large group of gamers.
See I never played Warcraft 3, and was playing SC2 much like SC1... The few things I learned thus far from the my WC3 friends have proved mighty useful, however I still didn't know that you could cast via the icons and was going back to my base anyways.
I don't feel this is such a big change to warrant an outbreak, it adds a minute level of difficulty to using your races "unique" abilities.
On April 23 2010 07:29 Clearout wrote: Archerofaiur is my hero. Hes done awesome things by seriously looking into true problems of SC2. FIGHT ON!
Thanks
Dont worry im going to continue talking about how the macro mechanics, particularly Spawn Larva, can be improved. The current system is not Blizzard quality. The Teamliquid community was instrumental in establishing what macro should look like and were going to see it through to the end.
I just dont want to get myself banned which i why i wanna step gently and not start fights that end with someone severing me from the community.
On April 23 2010 07:03 Zelniq wrote: the most major change I've found, that's extremely detrimental:
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
I hope this actually isn't a bug but a intentional change. The more APM you have the greater the reward should be.
I guess this means I won't meet any more Protoss players with 30 APM on platinum anymore.
On April 23 2010 07:31 DrSmoke wrote: Do I need to point out that "casual" players tend to not be in the beta. So.
1. Casuals won't know it was ever there. 2. By the time sc2 hits stores I think they will have it figured out, considering that if blizz wants money, they have to make the game accessible to a large group of gamers.
Are you kidding me?
Look at the massive number of copper/bronze/low silver players and all the people who got beta through WoW and tell me that "casual players tend to not be in beta"
There are a lot more changes than what were mentioned in the op and in the patch notes. For one void ray damage subtly changed. I don't remember how but it was something like +1 or -1 damage for each of the stages. Also the time to charge up was somehow changed (shortened I think).
Another one that I plan to check on the moment my patch finishes downloading is I think you can now cancel an egg without losing the larvae. That's gigantic. I don't know how many games I've lost where I had 2 inject larvaes come to fruition, turn out 8 drones and then immediately the protoss moves out that instant. Now I can just cancel and get 16 zerglings, no sweat.
On April 23 2010 07:03 Zelniq wrote: the most major change I've found, that's extremely detrimental:
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
I hope this actually isn't a bug but a intentional change. The more APM you have the greater the reward should be.
its not like you could play perfect anyway... more apm was already rewarded. by your argument they should remove auto-mining as well.
Removing wireframe targeting is retarded. It's basically like all those people who complained mindlessly about MBS ruining the game. It's just a needless change that focuses on adding mundane control to the game. In a game with smartcasting and improved AI and all this jazz, this is just a step in the wrong direction.
But of course a bunch of Terran icons in this thread are lauding this change. Anything for an advantage, eh?
On April 23 2010 07:30 3clipse wrote: I was doing fine with hotkeying my hatcheries to 5 and queens to 4. Never used the wireframe to spawn larvae.
So if you had all your queens on one kotkey like that.. What's the best way to center the screen on each one? Just click the picture of each one and tab through?
Another one that I plan to check on the moment my patch finishes downloading is I think you can now cancel an egg without losing the larvae. That's gigantic. I don't know how many games I've lost where I had 2 inject larvaes come to fruition, turn out 8 drones and then immediately the protoss moves out that instant. Now I can just cancel and get 16 zerglings, no sweat.
What makes you think that this is psosible now? That's a pretty huge buff if true.
"Zerg doesn't even have to look back at their bases to manage their entire macro!" "Spawn larva turned out to be a repetitive macro mechanic, too poorly designed to actually manage to do anything that we actually intended to do with it" "Should we fix it?" "No, let's just nerf the user interface, despite that arbitrary user interface limitations is completely contrary to the rest of our game design"
Isn't this a good change? Now it requires slighty more effort to do this in the middle of a game. But I've never clicked the icons anyway. Always double-pressing the group button for my Nexuses/Hatcheries to use Chrono Boost/Spawn Larvae.
Allow Terrans to put the mineral patches in control groups and MULE them that way. Problem solved!!
On April 23 2010 07:30 3clipse wrote: I was doing fine with hotkeying my hatcheries to 5 and queens to 4. Never used the wireframe to spawn larvae.
So if you had all your queens on one kotkey like that.. What's the best way to center the screen on each one? Just click the picture of each one and tab through?
Just hotkey hatcheries separately its what I do for queen macro (when they are at different bases)
On April 23 2010 07:30 QuothTheRaven wrote: Actually, come to think of it, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to limit the CC to 1 mule per OC at a time. That way you have to be paying attention to your macro. If you screw up and lose mule mining time, you at least have comsat scans that you can use instead (or supply drops).
It also helps deal with some of those late game issues where a T takes a new base and can instantly call down 8 mules to it to mine out a good portion of it in 90 seconds (not sure if this will prove to be a long term balance issue or not, but it's something to note).
Thats dumb, each race has a late game, mass ability.
1. Terrans, like you said, can start a new base and hit it with 8 mules, grabing 1k+ mins in no time.
2. Protoss can build 10 or more warpgates, and chrono boost them all, allowing you to warp in a new army in no time.
3. Zerg. When zerg is at full food, you can stockpile larva. Allowing for an almost instant rebuild of an army.
On April 23 2010 07:31 DrSmoke wrote: Do I need to point out that "casual" players tend to not be in the beta. So.
1. Casuals won't know it was ever there. 2. By the time sc2 hits stores I think they will have it figured out, considering that if blizz wants money, they have to make the game accessible to a large group of gamers.
Are you kidding me?
Look at the massive number of copper/bronze/low silver players and all the people who got beta through WoW and tell me that "casual players tend to not be in beta"
It's still super low compared to the amount of casual players that'll be playing at release. Aaaaaaand I bet a lot of the casual players in beta didn't even know about casting spells on wireframes.
On April 23 2010 07:30 QuothTheRaven wrote: Actually, come to think of it, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to limit the CC to 1 mule per OC at a time. That way you have to be paying attention to your macro. If you screw up and lose mule mining time, you at least have comsat scans that you can use instead (or supply drops).
It also helps deal with some of those late game issues where a T takes a new base and can instantly call down 8 mules to it to mine out a good portion of it in 90 seconds (not sure if this will prove to be a long term balance issue or not, but it's something to note).
Thats dumb, each race has a late game, mass ability.
1. Terrans, like you said, can start a new base and hit it with 8 mules, grabing 1k+ mins in no time.
2. Protoss can build 10 or more warpgates, and chrono boost them all, allowing you to warp in a new army in no time.
3. Zerg. When zerg is at full food, you can stockpile larva. Allowing for an almost instant rebuild of an army.
Yes, but the issue with the Zerg one is that it requires periodic player attention over a long span of time in order to get that. The T or P ones you can focus entirely on microing and then suddenly "oh hey I have 600 orbital command / Nexus energy between my bases, let me use it all at once."
On April 23 2010 07:31 DrSmoke wrote: Do I need to point out that "casual" players tend to not be in the beta. So.
1. Casuals won't know it was ever there. 2. By the time sc2 hits stores I think they will have it figured out, considering that if blizz wants money, they have to make the game accessible to a large group of gamers.
Are you kidding me?
Look at the massive number of copper/bronze/low silver players and all the people who got beta through WoW and tell me that "casual players tend to not be in beta"
It's still super low compared to the amount of casual players that'll be playing at release. Aaaaaaand I bet a lot of the casual players in beta didn't even know about casting spells on wireframes.
To prove you right, I am a new player and I did not know you could cast spells via the wireframe. ^^
Another one that I plan to check on the moment my patch finishes downloading is I think you can now cancel an egg without losing the larvae. That's gigantic. I don't know how many games I've lost where I had 2 inject larvaes come to fruition, turn out 8 drones and then immediately the protoss moves out that instant. Now I can just cancel and get 16 zerglings, no sweat.
What makes you think that this is psosible now? That's a pretty huge buff if true.
I see no reason they would ever do this... If they do that ruins the whole purpose of zergs style of macro.
Another one that I plan to check on the moment my patch finishes downloading is I think you can now cancel an egg without losing the larvae. That's gigantic. I don't know how many games I've lost where I had 2 inject larvaes come to fruition, turn out 8 drones and then immediately the protoss moves out that instant. Now I can just cancel and get 16 zerglings, no sweat.
What makes you think that this is psosible now? That's a pretty huge buff if true.
It's possible. Doesn't even have a cancellation cost either it seems like (for drones, at least, which is all I've tested on at the moment). You can test all this by testing a map in the map editor.
On April 23 2010 07:03 Zelniq wrote: the most major change I've found, that's extremely detrimental:
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
They must have done this to balance the zerg and protoss macro mechanics with the terran's mule which was the only mechanic which actually required you to go back to your base. I dont think I like that change though.
Yea that just doesn't make sense, why would they want all 3 macro mechanics to require similar amounts of attention???
ITS BLASPHEMY I TELL YOU!
If that's the case, then halve the duration of MULEs and make it require 25 energy instead. And if you want to compare it spawn larvae, make it so that you can only have 1 MULE per CC so you can't spam 4 MULEs if a CC has 100 energy.
That is accurate.. You can just spam several mules on a same mineral field but you cant use more than 1 chrono on a building.. You have to wait until first is done.. Terran mule macro is easy.. If you miss it it doesnt matter.. You want to have enough for scans at any time anyway..
Terran's more forgiving macro mechanic is mitigated somewhat by the tension of making hard decisions early on, on how to spend your energy. Z and P don't really have to deal with that tension.
Yeah that is accurate too.. Terran is more about choice so it doesnt get any harder later in game, while others are more hard work.. But also mules get more powerful later in game where you can just take gold expansion and calldown as many mules at once while chrono is hard work.. Even before the patch even very high level people use chrono only once when they start upgrades and dont come back every 15 sec even if they have much energy to spend because you cant really afford doing it so often for the small gain..
On April 23 2010 07:31 DrSmoke wrote: Do I need to point out that "casual" players tend to not be in the beta. So.
1. Casuals won't know it was ever there. 2. By the time sc2 hits stores I think they will have it figured out, considering that if blizz wants money, they have to make the game accessible to a large group of gamers.
Are you kidding me?
Look at the massive number of copper/bronze/low silver players and all the people who got beta through WoW and tell me that "casual players tend to not be in beta"
It's still super low compared to the amount of casual players that'll be playing at release. Aaaaaaand I bet a lot of the casual players in beta didn't even know about casting spells on wireframes.
I agree with you completely but I'm just disagreeing with Dr. Smoke when he says that there are no casuals.
Nerfing heal/repair is pretty extreme IMO. You could spam smartcast heals in Warcraft 3, it seems strange for the game to go backward in that regard, when the rest of the UI is generally a leap forward.
My bet is that Blizzard is doing this just to test how much players like/hate it. I hope it gets reverted.
great finds, am on the fence about not being able to use the somewhat easier way of macroing. Doing it like before with queens and hatcheries in same ctrl group felt sort of like an advancement in general UI use but it felt too easy. This on the other hand feels like a step back but requires a little more apm. Personally havent had any problems with going back to hatches when doing the spawn larva so that should be an indicator that it really isnt hard to do, you just need to be somewhat fast(comes with practice).
On April 23 2010 07:41 Piousflea wrote: Nerfing heal/repair is pretty extreme IMO. You could spam smartcast heals in Warcraft 3, it seems strange for the game to go backward in that regard, when the rest of the UI is generally a leap forward.
My bet is that Blizzard is doing this just to test how much players like/hate it. I hope it gets reverted.
That actually makes sense. It would explain why this change is unannounced.
I really like the change to keeping health bars green for longer. Seeing units/buildings drop into yellow usually just caused a false sense of alarm more then anything.
Blizzard just made the game a tiny bit harder to macro well (for zergs and Protoss) and the QQ is just pouring in..
If we want this game to be a great e-sport, we should welcome changes like this. I know its hard for casual players to deal with, but most didn't even know about the wireframe-trick nor do they care about finding the most optimal way to play the game.
On April 23 2010 07:40 haitike wrote: I like this change if the add the Fx Keys for movement, it would be more sc1 style, and for me its good.
It's not an either-or thing, they can have both. They have added the Fn keys in, and you can freel free to use them, but others are fine with this current mechanic. This is not a balance issue at all, it's just a interface issue. This is just a step backwards in terms of smooth, logical interface. The game isn't about who clicks faster/better >_>
On April 23 2010 07:36 Mnijykmirl wrote: "No, let's just nerf the user interface, despite that arbitrary user interface limitations is completely contrary to the rest of our game design"
This simply isn't true. Arbitrary UI limitations are everywhere.
Also, just because a patch doesn't address an issue doesn't mean that Blizzard thinks it isn't an issue. I'm sure there are a million things on Blizzard's to-do list, and a million more things on their let's-keep-an-eye-on-this list, but every patch can't possibly address every issue.
On April 23 2010 07:40 haitike wrote: I like this change if the add the Fx Keys for movement, it would be more sc1 style, and for me its good.
It's not an either-or thing, they can have both. They have added the Fn keys in, and you can freel free to use them, but others are fine with this current mechanic. This is not a balance issue at all, it's just a interface issue. This is just a step backwards in terms of smooth, logical interface. The game isn't about who clicks faster/better >_>
Isn't clicking faster or better the sole way of winning in any computer game?
On April 23 2010 07:42 Senx wrote: Blizzard just made the game a tiny bit harder to macro well (for zergs and Protoss) and the QQ is just pouring in..
If we want this game to be a great e-sport, we should welcome changes like this. I know its hard for casual players to deal with, but most didn't even know about the wireframe-trick nor do they care about finding the most optimal way to play the game.
Let's make it so that when you call down a MULE, it doesn't start auto mining. You have to manually tell it to mine after it lands. This would be great since it adds more control and complexity to the game, and higher APM players would benefit from it.
On April 23 2010 07:31 DrSmoke wrote: Do I need to point out that "casual" players tend to not be in the beta. So.
1. Casuals won't know it was ever there. 2. By the time sc2 hits stores I think they will have it figured out, considering that if blizz wants money, they have to make the game accessible to a large group of gamers.
Are you kidding me?
Look at the massive number of copper/bronze/low silver players and all the people who got beta through WoW and tell me that "casual players tend to not be in beta"
It's still super low compared to the amount of casual players that'll be playing at release. Aaaaaaand I bet a lot of the casual players in beta didn't even know about casting spells on wireframes.
Hell, I bet tons of casual z players don't even get queens within the first 10 minutes of the game t.t
I don't think this will mess up recreational play much at all. It'll just hurt Z at higher levels since they have to go back to their base to larvae inject, which does seem like a fairly big change.
ah well, guess i will just bind backspace on one of my mousebuttons. Or try the minimap approach, i know some people did it before, it cant be that horrible.
As long as they dont nerf the actual spawn larvae itself its all ok :O
Its a good thing I always went back to base to inject anyways
I knew about the ability to cast in wireframes, but going back to base felt like I was in more control of the game. And in my opinion, there really isn't a difference between the two methods when you average 200 APM+.
On April 23 2010 07:36 Mnijykmirl wrote: "No, let's just nerf the user interface, despite that arbitrary user interface limitations is completely contrary to the rest of our game design"
This simply isn't true. Arbitrary UI limitations are everywhere.
Also, just because a patch doesn't address an issue doesn't mean that Blizzard thinks it isn't an issue. I'm sure there are a million things on Blizzard's to-do list, and a million more things on their let's-keep-an-eye-on-this list, but every patch can't possibly address every issue.
Such as? It was clear when they went the route of MBS, smart casting, and unlimited unit selection that they had every intention of eliminating and streamlining arbitrary UI limitations. For example, they didn't just create MBS, they created the smartest MBS system you can think of.
Actually this change also goes against the whole theory of the zerg race being physically linked together as a hive mind so why the hell wouldn't a queen know about the hatch she's standing next to even without looking at it?
I'm h8'ing this change a lot less if my backspace method works, but its will kill the game in the long run for new players wanting to take the game up.
On April 23 2010 07:36 Mnijykmirl wrote: "No, let's just nerf the user interface, despite that arbitrary user interface limitations is completely contrary to the rest of our game design"
This simply isn't true. Arbitrary UI limitations are everywhere.
Also, just because a patch doesn't address an issue doesn't mean that Blizzard thinks it isn't an issue. I'm sure there are a million things on Blizzard's to-do list, and a million more things on their let's-keep-an-eye-on-this list, but every patch can't possibly address every issue.
To do list Change W hotkeys . . . . . . . . . Fix repeative action with no decision making that players have to do the entire game
Wait they make the game so that one race has to like know how to build stuff in front of youre map (in a different way for each map and each spawning location) and like one race has to micro the first few units like ehm i don´t know marines and tanks against units that would rape them unmicroed like ehm Zealots and Dragoons and like one race has to get detection because the other race has invisible units that they can get fairly quickly Thats totaly not like the spirit from SCBW. Seriosly get the fuck over it. Like Day[9] said Dont believe in imbalance think about ways to overcome difficulties.
Like Day[9] said Dont believe in imbalance think about ways to overcome difficulties.
This is not a balance issue, and people who're trying to make it into one is stupid. It's about terrible UI. Less than satisfactory UI I can deal with, and I can accept. When you already have a logical UI in place, expending the effort to remove it achieves...?
On April 23 2010 07:42 Senx wrote: Blizzard just made the game a tiny bit harder to macro well (for zergs and Protoss) and the QQ is just pouring in..
If we want this game to be a great e-sport, we should welcome changes like this. I know its hard for casual players to deal with, but most didn't even know about the wireframe-trick nor do they care about finding the most optimal way to play the game.
Let's make it so that when you call down a MULE, it doesn't start auto mining. You have to manually tell it to mine after it lands. This would be great since it adds more control and complexity to the game, and higher APM players would benefit from it.
And how is that on par with the other mechanics in difficulty? Now that every mechanic requires you to go back to your base it is now really unfair all the sudden. Gosh!
Like Day[9] said Dont believe in imbalance think about ways to overcome difficulties.
This is not a balance issue, and people who're trying to make it into one is stupid. It's about terrible UI. Less than satisfactory UI I can deal with, and I can accept. When you already have a logical UI in place, expending the effort to remove it achieves...?
Option A Give the macro mechanics more decision making thereby allowing you to keep the improved UI.
Option B Leave macro mechanics as are and disable improved UI. Leave work an hour early.
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.
On April 23 2010 07:42 Senx wrote: Blizzard just made the game a tiny bit harder to macro well (for zergs and Protoss) and the QQ is just pouring in..
If we want this game to be a great e-sport, we should welcome changes like this. I know its hard for casual players to deal with, but most didn't even know about the wireframe-trick nor do they care about finding the most optimal way to play the game.
Let's make it so that when you call down a MULE, it doesn't start auto mining. You have to manually tell it to mine after it lands. This would be great since it adds more control and complexity to the game, and higher APM players would benefit from it.
And how is that on par with the other mechanics in difficulty? Now that every mechanic requires you to go back to your base it is now really unfair all the sudden. Gosh!
It's not unfair, it's illogical. I'm just saying that implementing my hypothetical MULE change would be totally retarded, but it's comparable to what's going on here. If that change did get implemented I'm quite sure you'd be quite pissed.
On April 23 2010 07:42 Senx wrote: Blizzard just made the game a tiny bit harder to macro well (for zergs and Protoss) and the QQ is just pouring in..
If we want this game to be a great e-sport, we should welcome changes like this. I know its hard for casual players to deal with, but most didn't even know about the wireframe-trick nor do they care about finding the most optimal way to play the game.
Let's make it so that when you call down a MULE, it doesn't start auto mining. You have to manually tell it to mine after it lands. This would be great since it adds more control and complexity to the game, and higher APM players would benefit from it.
And make it 1 per cc so you have to do it periodically and not call them all at once.
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."
i never injected with the wires so idc about that at all iv been practicing to get my timing good enough to just know when hatches need it. but the change of spawn larva from r to v HURTS. >.< mule and chrono are easy to push buttons right by the hotkeys.... why V.... why?!?!?
On April 23 2010 07:56 EuroBlast wrote: i never injected with the wires so idc about that at all iv been practicing to get my timing good enough to just know when hatches need it. but the change of spawn larva from r to v HURTS. >.< mule and chrono are easy to push buttons right by the hotkeys.... why V.... why?!?!?
It's changed to V since burrow is now R instead of W. As far as why warpgates being W affects other races' hotkeys though, I have no idea. Maybe because of team melee or something.
On April 23 2010 07:54 MorroW wrote: i like the hidden changes so much. all of them
the fkeys along with the green-bar-stay-true is gonna help me so much. took days for me to stop using f-keys and panic over units that got yellow
also i embrace the fact that toss and zerg macro just got quite a bit harder
what are decals?
Decals are pictures/textures the lime-green spiral symbols on the creep around the buildings and on the nexus.
I do h8 protoss as a zerg player so I should rejoice the game is harder for them to macro but I don't feel happy about an rts moving away from the action and decision making to being more like accounting.
On April 23 2010 07:42 Senx wrote: Blizzard just made the game a tiny bit harder to macro well (for zergs and Protoss) and the QQ is just pouring in..
If we want this game to be a great e-sport, we should welcome changes like this. I know its hard for casual players to deal with, but most didn't even know about the wireframe-trick nor do they care about finding the most optimal way to play the game.
Let's make it so that when you call down a MULE, it doesn't start auto mining. You have to manually tell it to mine after it lands. This would be great since it adds more control and complexity to the game, and higher APM players would benefit from it.
And how is that on par with the other mechanics in difficulty? Now that every mechanic requires you to go back to your base it is now really unfair all the sudden. Gosh!
So do you agree that zerg players should be able to stockpile queen energy and cast multiple spawn larva on a hatchery at the same time?
On April 23 2010 07:54 MorroW wrote: what are decals?
The small logos on the units / buildings (next to the pool/hatch in case of zerg) in your team color. I guess you can unlock them through achievments...
On April 23 2010 07:42 Senx wrote: Blizzard just made the game a tiny bit harder to macro well (for zergs and Protoss) and the QQ is just pouring in..
If we want this game to be a great e-sport, we should welcome changes like this. I know its hard for casual players to deal with, but most didn't even know about the wireframe-trick nor do they care about finding the most optimal way to play the game.
Let's make it so that when you call down a MULE, it doesn't start auto mining. You have to manually tell it to mine after it lands. This would be great since it adds more control and complexity to the game, and higher APM players would benefit from it.
And how is that on par with the other mechanics in difficulty? Now that every mechanic requires you to go back to your base it is now really unfair all the sudden. Gosh!
So do you agree that zerg players should be able to stockpile queen energy and cast multiple spawn larva on a hatchery at the same time?
Do you agree that zergs macro mechanic is the strongest out of the 3? Does it make sense that a stronger mechanic should also be harder to pull off?
On April 23 2010 07:56 EuroBlast wrote: i never injected with the wires so idc about that at all iv been practicing to get my timing good enough to just know when hatches need it. but the change of spawn larva from r to v HURTS. >.< mule and chrono are easy to push buttons right by the hotkeys.... why V.... why?!?!?
It's changed to V since burrow is now R instead of W. As far as why warpgates being W affects other races' hotkeys though, I have no idea. Maybe because of team melee or something.
It's quite strange considering R is the dominent phonetic in Larva(LA(R) VA(R))
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".
Fantastic. I really like the no-wireframes change. It was pretty ridiculous that you could play very high level Zerg only using 3 hotkeys. Hotkeying your Queens 5,6,7,8 etc.. is actually pretty cool.
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".
I agree, which brings us back to the fundamental flaw in SC2, and all RTS games, you can build units in real time.
The wireframe change was probably put in to balance out the addition of the screen-hotkeys in terms of APM and difficulty of use.
Oh, and this:
It's still super low compared to the amount of casual players that'll be playing at release. Aaaaaaand I bet a lot of the casual players in beta didn't even know about casting spells on wireframes.
is pretty much accurate. Most more casual, lower-level players chrono boost only occasionally, when they think of it, and they do so almost entirely without using wireframes. At least, I (speaking as a Silver-level player who is frankly not very good) haven't put the wire-frame thing to much use at all...
Its about how Spawn Larva has no decision making.
Its not about "hard" no one is complaining because its hard. Their complaining because its a terrible mechanic.
But it's...not a terrible mechanic. If it helps, think of the overall mechanic as simply "Larva management," and Spawn Larva the ability as one of the things involved in that mechanic. The single click isn't everything...it's how the mechanic affects the game itself that matters. And it DOES promote decision-making in different aspects of the game, even if the ability itself is sometimes a no-brainer.
On April 23 2010 07:56 EuroBlast wrote: i never injected with the wires so idc about that at all iv been practicing to get my timing good enough to just know when hatches need it. but the change of spawn larva from r to v HURTS. >.< mule and chrono are easy to push buttons right by the hotkeys.... why V.... why?!?!?
It's changed to V since burrow is now R instead of W. As far as why warpgates being W affects other races' hotkeys though, I have no idea. Maybe because of team melee or something.
It's because infestors can control probes, which can allow zerg to build warpgates.
On April 23 2010 07:42 Senx wrote: Blizzard just made the game a tiny bit harder to macro well (for zergs and Protoss) and the QQ is just pouring in..
If we want this game to be a great e-sport, we should welcome changes like this. I know its hard for casual players to deal with, but most didn't even know about the wireframe-trick nor do they care about finding the most optimal way to play the game.
Let's make it so that when you call down a MULE, it doesn't start auto mining. You have to manually tell it to mine after it lands. This would be great since it adds more control and complexity to the game, and higher APM players would benefit from it.
And how is that on par with the other mechanics in difficulty? Now that every mechanic requires you to go back to your base it is now really unfair all the sudden. Gosh!
So do you agree that zerg players should be able to stockpile queen energy and cast multiple spawn larva on a hatchery at the same time?
Do you agree that zergs macro mechanic is the strongest out of the 3? Does it make sense that a stronger mechanic should also be harder to pull off?
If the answer is no, I can't really help you.
I have said repeatedly that this is not a balance issue, stop trying to turn it into that.
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".
I don't understand why you can't see that a good compromise is necessary.
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".
Some people here woud say "no that's no enough, it should be even harder!"
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".
I don't understand why you can't see that a good compromise is necessary.
What is necessary about forcing players to focus on repetitive and mundane tasks?
On April 23 2010 07:56 EuroBlast wrote: i never injected with the wires so idc about that at all iv been practicing to get my timing good enough to just know when hatches need it. but the change of spawn larva from r to v HURTS. >.< mule and chrono are easy to push buttons right by the hotkeys.... why V.... why?!?!?
It's changed to V since burrow is now R instead of W. As far as why warpgates being W affects other races' hotkeys though, I have no idea. Maybe because of team melee or something.
It's quite strange considering R is the dominent phonetic in Larva(LA(R) VA(R))
On April 23 2010 07:42 Senx wrote: Blizzard just made the game a tiny bit harder to macro well (for zergs and Protoss) and the QQ is just pouring in..
If we want this game to be a great e-sport, we should welcome changes like this. I know its hard for casual players to deal with, but most didn't even know about the wireframe-trick nor do they care about finding the most optimal way to play the game.
Let's make it so that when you call down a MULE, it doesn't start auto mining. You have to manually tell it to mine after it lands. This would be great since it adds more control and complexity to the game, and higher APM players would benefit from it.
And how is that on par with the other mechanics in difficulty? Now that every mechanic requires you to go back to your base it is now really unfair all the sudden. Gosh!
So do you agree that zerg players should be able to stockpile queen energy and cast multiple spawn larva on a hatchery at the same time?
If the answer is no, I can't really help you.
Zergs macro mechanic is the only one that has a major negative in that every energy above 25 is lost macro potential which the other races do not suffer from at all. It can be argued that heal is a counter to that but that is hardly used all game long in the way spawn larva has to be to be effective. Do you agree that zergs macro mechanic is the strongest out of the 3? Does it make sense that a stronger mechanic should also be harder to pull off?
On April 23 2010 07:54 MorroW wrote: what are decals?
The small logos on the units / buildings (next to the pool/hatch in case of zerg) in your team color. I guess you can unlock them through achievments...
well is there any way to disable it?
i dont wanna see any custom bullcrap or green circles floating around
btw i think its a solid idea to add a sound for zergs when spawn larva is done, i think thats pretty fair as it makes a sound when any other upgrade or unit is done
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.
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...
On April 23 2010 07:54 MorroW wrote: what are decals?
The small logos on the units / buildings (next to the pool/hatch in case of zerg) in your team color. I guess you can unlock them through achievments...
well is there any way to disable it?
i dont wanna see any custom bullcrap or green circles floating around
Well if they're unlocked via achievements you just have to not achieve anything and you're set!
On April 23 2010 07:56 EuroBlast wrote: i never injected with the wires so idc about that at all iv been practicing to get my timing good enough to just know when hatches need it. but the change of spawn larva from r to v HURTS. >.< mule and chrono are easy to push buttons right by the hotkeys.... why V.... why?!?!?
It's changed to V since burrow is now R instead of W. As far as why warpgates being W affects other races' hotkeys though, I have no idea. Maybe because of team melee or something.
It's quite strange considering R is the dominent phonetic in Larva(LA(R) VA(R))
Build Pylon? Warp in Probe? lolol
The harder for toss the better, everything that gets in the way of 1a for them makes my soul shine =D
But in serious'ness all hotkeys should be on the left side of a natural keyboard and Alt+1-6 should be alternate group selection to make up for the non-need of use for 7-0 keys for natural keyboard users.
On April 23 2010 08:04 Captain Peabody wrote: But it's...not a terrible mechanic. If it helps, think of the overall mechanic as simply "Larva management," and Spawn Larva the ability as one of the things involved in that mechanic. The single click isn't everything...it's how the mechanic affects the game itself that matters. And it DOES promote decision-making in different aspects of the game, even if the ability itself is sometimes a no-brainer.
Spawn Larva succeeds in allot of ways. But that doesnt make it not a terrible mechanics. You said somtimes the ability is a no-brainer.
reason to change burrow hot key is that if u neutral a probe and start making a protoss army while ur a zerg player, u hv a chance of getting wrapgate => conflict
On April 23 2010 07:42 Senx wrote: Blizzard just made the game a tiny bit harder to macro well (for zergs and Protoss) and the QQ is just pouring in..
If we want this game to be a great e-sport, we should welcome changes like this. I know its hard for casual players to deal with, but most didn't even know about the wireframe-trick nor do they care about finding the most optimal way to play the game.
Let's make it so that when you call down a MULE, it doesn't start auto mining. You have to manually tell it to mine after it lands. This would be great since it adds more control and complexity to the game, and higher APM players would benefit from it.
And how is that on par with the other mechanics in difficulty? Now that every mechanic requires you to go back to your base it is now really unfair all the sudden. Gosh!
So do you agree that zerg players should be able to stockpile queen energy and cast multiple spawn larva on a hatchery at the same time?
Do you agree that zergs macro mechanic is the strongest out of the 3? Does it make sense that a stronger mechanic should also be harder to pull off?
If the answer is no, I can't really help you.
Ok Terran is the new Protoss and Zerg is the new Terran...? :X
i can't get it. how u guys used that wireframe thing? I mean.. let's say for example all of ur queens were on 4 and all ur hatch on 5 - so how u were able to fast switch to ur base locations? 0 9 8 for locations? Or mini-map clicking or maybe even middle button screen move? well thats zerg discussion lol
anyways good change. simply because this nerf does not affect me at all, and seems like affects bunch of my opps.
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.
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.
Interface should not, if possible, ever be a limiting/differentiating factor in "skill."
On April 23 2010 08:11 zergporn wrote: i can't get it. how u guys used that wireframe thing? I mean.. let's say for example all of ur queens were on 4 and all ur hatch on 5 - so how u were able to fast switch to ur base locations? 0 9 8 for locations? Or mini-map clicking or maybe even middle button screen move? well thats zerg discussion lol
First of all, that's not how you use wire frame for larva injection. Second, you would for example have all hatches on 4 to produce, and quee1+hatch1 on 5, and u could hit r+click on the hatch in the wire frame. So on and so forth.
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
That is a good change..
If this is true then it single handedly pushes away all the casual/lower apm players from enjoying the game with arbitrary physical skill cap to succeed.
Casual/lower apm players don't need success to enjoy the game. Only competitive players need to be successful to enjoy the game :o
On April 23 2010 08:11 zergporn wrote: i can't get it. how u guys used that wireframe thing? I mean.. let's say for example all of ur queens were on 4 and all ur hatch on 5 - so how u were able to fast switch to ur base locations? 0 9 8 for locations? Or mini-map clicking or maybe even middle button screen move? well thats zerg discussion lol
anyways good change. simply because this nerf does not affect me at all, and seems like affects bunch of my opps.
You bound queens and hatcheries to the same key, and the game automatically choose the closest queen to do the injection.
On April 23 2010 08:11 zergporn wrote: i can't get it. how u guys used that wireframe thing? I mean.. let's say for example all of ur queens were on 4 and all ur hatch on 5 - so how u were able to fast switch to ur base locations? 0 9 8 for locations? Or mini-map clicking or maybe even middle button screen move? well thats zerg discussion lol
anyways good change. simply because this nerf does not affect me at all, and seems like affects bunch of my opps.
You used to have queens+hatchs in the same group and just use shift(hold)-r and click each wireframe of each hatchery.
Is there any chance, even if it's rare one. That the new icons are intended to show where units created from that building will spawn? Heard a lot of feedback that some need for improvement to how workers come out of creation buildings needed more options.
Totally just random thought, I guess I feel it does make sense in some regard. If they do allow players to pick side and the "Larva" would possible move to one of those icons and it becomes "glowing" or active so to speak.
I don't think gimping the UI is ever a valid choice from a game design perspective. The more, easier ways there are for players to control their units, the better. When you get held up over a stupid problem with the UI it doesn't help the actual game in any way. The proper thing to do would have been to make it easier to cast mules to the nearest mineral patch without having to look at the mineral patch. Actually removing a UI feature in the name of balance is retarded.
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.
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.
On April 23 2010 07:42 Senx wrote: Blizzard just made the game a tiny bit harder to macro well (for zergs and Protoss) and the QQ is just pouring in..
If we want this game to be a great e-sport, we should welcome changes like this. I know its hard for casual players to deal with, but most didn't even know about the wireframe-trick nor do they care about finding the most optimal way to play the game.
Let's make it so that when you call down a MULE, it doesn't start auto mining. You have to manually tell it to mine after it lands. This would be great since it adds more control and complexity to the game, and higher APM players would benefit from it.
And how is that on par with the other mechanics in difficulty? Now that every mechanic requires you to go back to your base it is now really unfair all the sudden. Gosh!
So do you agree that zerg players should be able to stockpile queen energy and cast multiple spawn larva on a hatchery at the same time?
Do you agree that zergs macro mechanic is the strongest out of the 3? Does it make sense that a stronger mechanic should also be harder to pull off?
If the answer is no, I can't really help you.
Whether the zerg macro mechanic is imba is not the issue. Your original claim was that all 3 macro mechanics require equal attention, which is false.
On April 23 2010 07:03 Zelniq wrote: the most major change I've found, that's extremely detrimental:
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
They must have done this to balance the zerg and protoss macro mechanics with the terran's mule which was the only mechanic which actually required you to go back to your base. I dont think I like that change though.
Yea that just doesn't make sense, why would they want all 3 macro mechanics to require similar amounts of attention???
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
That is a good change..
If this is true then it single handedly pushes away all the casual/lower apm players from enjoying the game with arbitrary physical skill cap to succeed.
Casual/lower apm players don't need success to enjoy the game. Only competitive players need to be successful to enjoy the game :o
I agree with Senx. This will drive new players away leaving Starcraft 2 just for us devoted fans.
This isn't true at all. Even though I was aware of the feature I went back to my base to do it all the time. I still manage to win games and Im in silver division which is decent imo. Im sure most less talented players dont use this function to begin with.
On April 23 2010 08:15 iLLusive wrote: Is there any chance, even if it's rare one. That the new icons are intended to show where units created from that building will spawn? Heard a lot of feedback that some need for improvement to how workers come out of creation buildings needed more options.
Totally just random thought, I guess I feel it does make sense in some regard. If they do allow players to pick side and the "Larva" would possible move to one of those icons and it becomes "glowing" or active so to speak.
There are decals outside of the spawning pool so I doubt it. It's probably just some random decoration, it really fit ok on the Nexus, but on hatchery/spawning pool it just looked plain stupid and I don't think many people would disagree there.
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.
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.
On April 23 2010 07:42 Senx wrote: Blizzard just made the game a tiny bit harder to macro well (for zergs and Protoss) and the QQ is just pouring in..
If we want this game to be a great e-sport, we should welcome changes like this. I know its hard for casual players to deal with, but most didn't even know about the wireframe-trick nor do they care about finding the most optimal way to play the game.
Let's make it so that when you call down a MULE, it doesn't start auto mining. You have to manually tell it to mine after it lands. This would be great since it adds more control and complexity to the game, and higher APM players would benefit from it.
And how is that on par with the other mechanics in difficulty? Now that every mechanic requires you to go back to your base it is now really unfair all the sudden. Gosh!
So do you agree that zerg players should be able to stockpile queen energy and cast multiple spawn larva on a hatchery at the same time?
Do you agree that zergs macro mechanic is the strongest out of the 3? Does it make sense that a stronger mechanic should also be harder to pull off?
If the answer is no, I can't really help you.
Whether the zerg macro mechanic is imba is not the issue. Your original claim was that all 3 macro mechanics require equal attention, which is false.
On April 23 2010 07:03 Zelniq wrote: the most major change I've found, that's extremely detrimental:
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
They must have done this to balance the zerg and protoss macro mechanics with the terran's mule which was the only mechanic which actually required you to go back to your base. I dont think I like that change though.
Yea that just doesn't make sense, why would they want all 3 macro mechanics to require similar amounts of attention???
ITS BLASPHEMY I TELL YOU!
Where in my post did the word equal appear? I can't find it.
They changed zerg macro exactly as I was hoping they would, but then they changed spawn larvae from R to V... Why would you introduce the F hotkeys and then move spawn larvae twice as far from the F keys as they were previously? I mean they changed burrow from W to R for some reason, but last I checked queens do not burrow...
That there are times when UI limitations are good for gameplay is true. However Spawn Larva goes above and beyond any reasonable considerations for what is good gameplay.
The macro mechanics do not have to be without decision making. Orbital Command and Chronoboost proved that.
The macro mechanics do not have to be absolutly unforgiving. Orbital Command and Chronoboost proved that.
On April 23 2010 08:23 _EmIL_ wrote: lol didnt even know that Z had so easy to macro
wtf? So the "game" told the closest queen to inject the hatch? Such a crap tbh. doesnt deserve to be in the game
Thats why it was removed but it was also like that for protoss press W and all warp gates are selected which was dumb. I am glad both were removed (although I went to my base anyway :D)
Honestly who cares about design philosophy or repetitive action that might as well be automated? Is dribbling in basketball a stupid repetitive task that has no point other than to make the game artificially harder? Yes.. but it'd be a boring ass game for pansies if you just carried a ball across the court and threw it in a basket. Say what you want but if I didn't have to do any base management, or if said base management was too trivial, I'd be staring at units duking it out and yawning. SC2, at least for me, is fun because no matter how hard I try, I always feel like I could've been doing more. Meaningful or not, if I forget to press s every 10 seconds to make an scv I'll lose the game, and that's challenging for me in a good way.
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.
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 entire idea behind the added macro mechanics was for people to have to go back to their base. Letting people do it from the wireframe went against the core design principles
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.
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.
I don't think the change is the end of the world, but one thing that raises concern is that zerg base management may have gotten harder since BW, and I don't think that's the same for the other two races. I don't play them, however, so any P/T players please correct me if I'm wrong. Chronoboost and MULEs have added new options, but MBS isn't as beneficial for us as it is for the other two and it's not like we can do s/d/z and get 6 lings. It's s/d/zzz while having to spread creep and play with OL/overseers, on top of the main macro mechanic (inject.)
The F keys will definitely make things easier though, I'll just use those for hatcheries instead. In some ways, I think it'll improve my queen micro and build decisions.
Plus on the other hand, P can't just hide random ass warpgates all over the place as easily as before.
On April 23 2010 08:23 _EmIL_ wrote: lol didnt even know that Z had so easy to macro
wtf? So the "game" told the closest queen to inject the hatch? Such a crap tbh. doesnt deserve to be in the game
It was an extension of the smart casting. When you have multiple spellcasters selected, when told to cast a spell, the caster with enough energy closest to the place you told it to cast will be the one that casts at that location.
What doesn't "deserve" to be in SC2 is such a shittily designed macro mechanic. If a macro mechanic was intended to add a gain from having APM spent on macro, or create an additional decision making process with "energy tension" of the macro mechanic, or just make the player look back at their base, the design of spawn larva failed all three. The solution would clearly be to rethink spawn larva, not remove ability/spellcasting on wire-frames.
I still think the zerg macro mechanic got unfairly nerfed. Imagine later in the game when you have 4-5 bases. During battle is a player really expected to look at 5 different locations? That's ridiculous.
On April 23 2010 08:25 Feefee wrote: Honestly who cares about design philosophy or repetitive action that might as well be automated? Is dribbling in basketball a stupid repetitive task that has no point other than to make the game artificially harder? Yes.. but it'd be a boring ass game for pansies if you just carried a ball across the court and threw it in a basket. Say what you want but if I didn't have to do any base management, or if said base management was too trivial, I'd be staring at units duking it out and yawning. SC2, at least for me, is fun because no matter how hard I try, I always feel like I could've been doing more. Meaningful or not, if I forget to press s every 10 seconds to make an scv I'll lose the game, and that's challenging for me in a good way.
Guess what you can have base management that actually requires decision making. It doesnt have to be one or the other. Here ill show you
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.
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.
Stop living in the past we are in the future there are flying cars and shit already!
RTS doesn't stand for Really Tedious Sports where supposed to be using our brains not bodies else we should all be in the gym with the Jocs.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You know how Psi Storm doesnt have autocast but players dont care because it has decision making. Player action must be tied to player decision making. Thats the concept of meaningful action. And its just good game design.
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.
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.
As a sport, how much are spectators going to care that it took x amount of additional APM to cast spawn larva on 5 hatcheries? None at all. They ARE going to care about those pros 220+ APM allowing them to perform amazing battle micro across 3 different attack locations.
People are awed by muta micro or even muta mis-micro, they are not awed by a player losing a game because of missing a round of larva usage(or a round of spawn larva injection).
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.
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 physical gap instead of a mental gap is meant for physical sports not a strategy game whose name explains its raison d'être.
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.
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.
On April 23 2010 07:04 Tundravalco wrote: What are the decals used for if anything other than looking cool?
terrible terrible profit. i wonder if this is gonna means that every time i play someone with custom decals that i have to download those thus slowing load time?
you guys are a bunch of QQers srsly. good larva inject and chrono boost management will now set apart the good zergs/toss from the bad ones instead of it being on easy mode from the previous patches.
you ppl just dont like the fact that something that was EASY to do is now made slight harder and u need slightly more effort put into it. get the hell over it and learn to deal with it like any other good player instead of crying about it.
On April 23 2010 08:25 Feefee wrote: Honestly who cares about design philosophy or repetitive action that might as well be automated? Is dribbling in basketball a stupid repetitive task that has no point other than to make the game artificially harder? Yes.. but it'd be a boring ass game for pansies if you just carried a ball across the court and threw it in a basket. Say what you want but if I didn't have to do any base management, or if said base management was too trivial, I'd be staring at units duking it out and yawning. SC2, at least for me, is fun because no matter how hard I try, I always feel like I could've been doing more. Meaningful or not, if I forget to press s every 10 seconds to make an scv I'll lose the game, and that's challenging for me in a good way.
Dribbling actually has a lot of depth to it. For example, if you are moving ahead towards the basket and encounter two opposing players in your way, your ability to control the ball (dribbling) decides if you are capable of going past them. Something like going forward, spinning counter-clockwise to block the player to the left (showing your back to him and not allowing him to reach the ball) requires technique in being able to control the position of the ball during this maneuver.
Spawning Larva requires you to remember to do it every 40 seconds.
On April 23 2010 07:04 Tundravalco wrote: What are the decals used for if anything other than looking cool?
terrible terrible profit. i wonder if this is gonna means that every time i play someone with custom decals that i have to download those thus slowing load time?
no peopel cannot make their own custom decals, some people will get access to unique/special decals provided by blizz
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.
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.
Dribbling in basketball isn't really analogous to a macro mechanic in the first place. Dribbling is an essential requirement for the game of basketball to even exist. If players didn't dribble, and instead only carried the basketball, then they couldn't steal from each other.
Changelings are now auto-fired if units are on hold position. Chrono boost now has a new sound. Peons gather resources to the closest HQ, even if it is of a different race (Say you're Zerg and have a probe, he can mine to your hatchery)
I can understand how players that trained up those skills(mechanics, multitasking) want to keep there advantage over other players but its as if they are scared they will be beaten by noob players. That belittles themselves if their own strategies if they fail to any mindless noob just cos that noob can macro easily.
On April 23 2010 08:42 alexanderzero wrote: Dribbling in basketball isn't really analogous to a macro mechanic in the first place. Dribbling is an essential requirement for the game of basketball to even exist. If players didn't dribble, and instead only carried the basketball, then they couldn't steal from each other.
Actually, basketball was originally created without dribbling; they could only pass the ball. But dribbling was later defined as continuously passing the ball to yourself.
On April 23 2010 08:42 HazMat wrote: Changelings are now auto-fired if units are on hold position.
Wait, enemy changelings will automatically be killed without me even knowing if I have my units on hold position? LOL
That's what it looks like. I was going around clicking 'H' with my stalker and he would shoot changelings if they were the closest. I don't know the priority of it though.
Wow, the macro change is ... huge. Come to think of it, it kind of gives me an advantage. I only really used it to cast Chrono on my Nexuses. I clicked on the actual building itself any other time. I don't like setting all my buildings to the same hotkey. I end up setting my Probe rally points to the front door of my opponent's base, or sending Collossi to furiously guard mineral patches while there's a massive battle going on.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
I would say the great parts of BW were the economic management, timing and micro, ie the decision making in small and large. Not the 400 apm part.
Spawn larva is, if not a step away from that, at least not a step towards it. I agree very much with Archer.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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".
"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.
@ 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.
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.
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 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.
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 08:03 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 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.
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.
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 08:56 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 08:03 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 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.
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.
Yes because thats exactly what I said I want control groups removed also!
On April 23 2010 08:23 _EmIL_ wrote: lol didnt even know that Z had so easy to macro
wtf? So the "game" told the closest queen to inject the hatch? Such a crap tbh. doesnt deserve to be in the game
Thats why it was removed but it was also like that for protoss press W and all warp gates are selected which was dumb. I am glad both were removed (although I went to my base anyway :D)
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.
You keep saying this, but since when was pressing W for warpgates removed?
On April 23 2010 08:23 _EmIL_ wrote: lol didnt even know that Z had so easy to macro
wtf? So the "game" told the closest queen to inject the hatch? Such a crap tbh. doesnt deserve to be in the game
Thats why it was removed but it was also like that for protoss press W and all warp gates are selected which was dumb. I am glad both were removed (although I went to my base anyway :D)
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.
You keep saying this, but since when was pressing W for warpgates removed?
I read it somewhere from somebody messing around with the editor. Unless that guy lied or I misread I have just been agreeing with it.
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.
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.
On April 23 2010 08:23 _EmIL_ wrote: lol didnt even know that Z had so easy to macro
wtf? So the "game" told the closest queen to inject the hatch? Such a crap tbh. doesnt deserve to be in the game
Thats why it was removed but it was also like that for protoss press W and all warp gates are selected which was dumb. I am glad both were removed (although I went to my base anyway :D)
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.
You keep saying this, but since when was pressing W for warpgates removed?
I read it somewhere from somebody messing around with the editor. Unless that guy lied or I misread I have just been agreeing with it.
Why would they make the change Several hotkeys have been changed to avoid conflicts with the "Select All Warpgates" UI button if they removed "Select All Warpgates"?
I'm amazed at all the people raging on SC2's UI o_O Yeah it's easier to do stuff than BW's asinine UI, the game is still amazingly hard and has PLENTY to keep you occupied with. WC3 basically had all the UI you needed and that game is by no means easy. The discrepency between players like SpiritMoon or FoV and the rank20th is huge.
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'm a zerg player and I approve of the change.
I wouldn't trust TL icons to tell what race a player plays either, especially in SC2.
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.
Its basically the same as how the best combos in Streetfighter are dependant on the exact frame of an animation you hit the button on and need mindless tedious hours on end grinding just to do right and consistently.
As a decent SF player(Akuma, Bison, C.Viper!!!, El Fuerte, Rose) I completely understand wanting to have a physical requirement just to be competitive at the high level but less players playing a game leads to stagnation regardless how much my ego wants me to hold an advantage over other players.
Some physical skill checks go to far and some are fine; I draw the line at the point where it stops being fun/rewarding to executive the skill and becomes a chore.
Even if there was a mode for new players to press 1 button to do a fireball or dragon punch I wouldn't mind as I would still beat them with superior tactics/strategy to my matches. But 1 button to execute a combo would be going to far. Its all about knowing how far to go in making a game excessive and challenging.
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.
1) Terran usually has less expands than zerg -> = terran easier to macro. 2) You can use multiple mules in case you forgot to use them = terran easier to macro. 3) You can use all mules on the same base, while the zerg need check all of them = terran easier to macro. 4) I have to use larvae inject 2x often than u have to use mules.
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.
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.
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.
It seems weird that they would make a change to the wire-frame casting feature and not list it in the patch notes. Especially since you can still use the mini-map casting (which is not that much more difficult so it makes me skeptical that it was an intentional nerf). Are we sure that it's not just a bug?
On April 23 2010 09:01 Azide wrote: Ok this change is huge.
Colossi CANNOT walk past/over FORCE FIELDS.
Aw that sucks, I was kind of hoping that they would let all massive ground units get over forcefields (Or even destroy them, which would make the Ultralisk more useful).
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
Pros DO want more casuals playing. That means more interest in their game and more people that think they're special (they're not), turning into bigger paychecks for them.
I'm willing to bet the wireframe thing is a bug and will be fixed, I've never heard of Blizzard intentionally bogging down their UI in any of their games. Most changes they make strive to make UI stuff easier so the focus can be on actual gameplay.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
-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?...
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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 08:17 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: [quote]
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!
This kind of posting style reminds me allot of a poster we have on StarcraftLegacy named Demosquid.
And just like there its not constructive in any way.
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.
Have you ever played zerg? I've had many many games where my base has been attacked and used transfusion and not had enough energy to spawn larva after my opponent backed off. Or spawned larva right before an attack and been one transfusion short of holding my sunken line and lost my expansion.
Maybe there isn't as much decision making throughout the game as chrono boost. But a zerg player is also paying attention to creep tumors, overlords and overseers that are spread thoughout the map. Zerg players also have to think about which hatchery they want to produce from in the later game. Mid to late game making your units at the wrong hatchery can totally screw you. By contrast protoss can make their gateway units where ever they want, but have to keep up on the warpgate cycles, as well as manage their other productions.
To directly compare spawn larva to chrono boost is absurd. You need to compare one race's macro to another in full. An do it in the game, in the context of using the UI while competing, not just sit around thinking about it.
On April 23 2010 09:34 MidKnight wrote: 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..
Supply is actually a example of a mechanic that does involve decision making. Specifically spacial, temporal and mineral tension.
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?
I really believe he could still play competitively with 1 finger on each hand, not every player is going to strive to be the best in the world.
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)
Your first response to me doesn't make sense. You're the one that said how difficult an action should be is directly related to how much decision making was involved. That's all I had to do to refute that is to explain how and why there are other factors involved when determining how difficult an action should be. The best solution is for there to be enough significant decisions involved in the game to reasonably distribute the amount of actions it takes to keep the game competitively healthy. In my opinion, it's more important for the game to be competitively healthy than for every action to involve a decision. But we can have both. I'm sure there is a certain percentage of meaningful actions you need to have fun while playing the game just as there is a certain difficulty of performing actions needed to keep the game competitive. They are both important considerations. You wanted to say there was only one. I am saying there is another. Responding to me by acting as if I'm saying there is only one is feeble.
Your second response is also sort of tossing my post out the window. Macro moves need to require a significant amount of action to keep diversity of strategy alive. Cutting them too severely isn't an option. If people are saying they can't have fun playing the game because when they play Zerg they don't like having to do Spawn Larva, and they'd have fun if a more significant decision was involved when doing Spawn Larva, then sure let's have Blizzard make it have more of a decision. But severely reducing the difficulty of the act of doing it (or removing it completely) has major repercussions for other aspects of the game.
On April 23 2010 08:31 Liquid`NonY wrote: [quote] 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!
This kind of posting style reminds me allot of a poster we have on StarcraftLegacy named Demosquid.
And just like there its not constructive in any way.
He grew tired beacuse you're trying to have a debate with him on a topic that he wasn't even talking about in the first place?
On April 23 2010 08:34 Archerofaiur wrote: [quote]
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!
This kind of posting style reminds me allot of a poster we have on StarcraftLegacy named Demosquid.
And just like there its not constructive in any way.
He grew tired beacuse you're trying to have a debate with him on a topic that he wasn't even talking about in the first place?
As ive said before the underlying issue, and the reason this UI change took place, is the inherient shallowness of the macro mechanics.
Or is discussing the root of the problem somehow not applicable to a discussion of a problem?
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
That is a good change..
i didn't even know u could do that, haha woulda made things a whole lot easier
On April 23 2010 08:17 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: [quote]
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?
I really believe he could still play competitively with 1 finger on each hand
hehe yeh probably
I just don't see why anyone should need to live a skrewed up life just cos of a shit UI in a game they enjoy just to stay competative. The better mind should win everytime not the best muscles/genes/lifestyle that allows access to the most practice time.
20 hours a week seems like enough to me. 40 hours if its your actual job you'd put that in as a matter of course but should we be doing that just to be mechanically capable as non-pro-housed players? I think not.
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.
Someone with a physical disability is outside of my reasoning... but what more can I say than that there is a physical component? People don't approach other established and successful competitions and complain to them that they have arbitrary requirements, that they'd rather some of the requirements be dropped so people that excel in the other requirements can have more success... I'm just a guy who thinks SC:BW was absolutely brilliant and a wonderful game and I'd love for SC2 to be like it in essence, as a sequel should be, but with updated content. There is a strong physical component in the game we play here and that's just the way it is. It could be worse. Like I said, I think no special talent is required for the physical part of the game. Average ability + sufficient training = good enough to be a top player.
On April 23 2010 08:17 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: [quote]
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.
Someone with a physical disability is outside of my reasoning... but what more can I say than that there is a physical component? People don't approach other established and successful competitions and complain to them that they have arbitrary requirements, that they'd rather some of the requirements be dropped so people that excel in the other requirements can have more success... I'm just a guy who thinks SC:BW was absolutely brilliant and a wonderful game and I'd love for SC2 to be like it in essence, as a sequel should be, but with updated content. There is a strong physical component in the game we play here and that's just the way it is. It could be worse. Like I said, I think no special talent is required for the physical part of the game. Average ability + sufficient training = good enough to be a top player.
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?
No. THIS is complete garbage reasoning, and a complete misunderstanding of what Nony was trying to convey with his post. Of course, any sort of videogame or a physical sport will have limitations based on the human body, at least until we invent some sort of game that plays solely through the mind (chess is like this). Peyton Manning is one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time, largely in part because he is a true student of the game. But if he doesn't have arms then he can't be the player he is right now. True. Obviously true. But this kind of argument is completely irrelevant to the point above.
The point is that a game should allow for a very high ceiling of play or competition in order to even have '"truly great" players. For example, there is no serious Wii Mario Kart scene at the moment, nor do I think there ever will be one. This is because a child who plays the game 10 hours a week can become just as good as a man playing 40 hours a week due to the randomness of the game, its easy mechanics, and the tendency to rubberband last place players back into the game. A serious E-sport game is going to require that a player who practices more or more effectively will usually win over another player who does not practice as much. And the greatest e-sports have insanely high skill caps. Both Counterstrike and Starcraft create an environment in which initial or nascent skill must be developed through countless hours of practice in order to reach a high level of competitive play.
The incredible irony of this whole arguement is that Nony, for all the fight hes putting up, agrees that Spawn Larva should have more decision making.
It's not ironic at all. So what if I have the same conclusion as you do in the topic you're trying to bring up? I wasn't avoiding your topic because I disagree with its conclusion. The point is that it wasn't what people were talking about before you came along. I liked the discussion that was going on and I wanted to see it to the end without you turning it into something else. That's the reason for all the fight I put up and it makes perfect sense.
On April 23 2010 08:31 Liquid`NonY wrote: [quote] 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?
I really believe he could still play competitively with 1 finger on each hand
hehe yeh probably
I just don't see why anyone should need to live a skrewed up life just cos of a shit UI in a game they enjoy just to stay competative. The better mind should win everytime not the best muscles/genes/lifestyle that allows access to the most practice time.
20 hours a week seems like enough to me. 40 hours if its your actual job you'd put that in as a matter of course but should we be doing that just to be mechanically capable as non-pro-housed players? I think not.
Well I guess here is where we disagree... SC:BW supports almost 300 Koreans playing SC:BW full time. And there are hundreds (thousands?) more Koreans who would play it full time if they had the opportunity. And there are a lot of non-Koreans who would do it too, though it's hard to say how many. I don't want someone who is playing 20 hours a week to be a top player. Maybe we are just using the words good/great differently. Yeah, someone playing 20 hours ought to be able to be pretty good, but not winning major tournaments...
well ok, the zerg may want to spawn larva at all times, but he still has to decide if he wants drones or units, something that other races dont have to do to this extend, that should redeem zerg macro.
And spawn larvae is quite powerful, but much more difficult to use now than for example terran MULEs, you have to use it every time its up or you loose the benefit for as long as you forget while terrans can use the energy later and make up for their failure. You also need to use it double as often and you have to click at multiple locations instead of a single mineral line.
Also, handling your time spend at doing stuff is ALSO decision making. And there are games that tried to cut off all the stuff that could be automated and it turned out that it makes the game less interesting. For example Age of Mythology's expansion The Titans introduced automated building of units and workers, fans found that (and other stuff) terrible and after a bit they just stopped using the xpack completely and just played the vanilla game for multiplayer.
Edit:
The better mind should win everytime not the best muscles/genes/lifestyle that allows access to the most practice time.
Sc2 is a RTS, time you need for your actions matter. Otherwise you could just play a turnbased startegy game in simultaneous mode. And as everything at life, poeple that put effort in things tend to be better than others, its like this in sports, science etc, its also like this in MP-games. This is a very common discussion in MMO forums btw since there time spend directly equals the amount of content you can access, but some people want to see all content no matter how much time invested because they payed the same as the hardcore players.
Green health bar fix good. I'd like to see them make health bars transparent or make a TRUE toggle (press ALT once and it stays one, press ALT again and it stays off)... just so the game would look a little cleaner. Always on obviously is very beneficial, but it just looks bad.
On April 23 2010 08:23 _EmIL_ wrote: lol didnt even know that Z had so easy to macro
wtf? So the "game" told the closest queen to inject the hatch? Such a crap tbh. doesnt deserve to be in the game
It was an extension of the smart casting. When you have multiple spellcasters selected, when told to cast a spell, the caster with enough energy closest to the place you told it to cast will be the one that casts at that location.
What doesn't "deserve" to be in SC2 is such a shittily designed macro mechanic. If a macro mechanic was intended to add a gain from having APM spent on macro, or create an additional decision making process with "energy tension" of the macro mechanic, or just make the player look back at their base, the design of spawn larva failed all three. The solution would clearly be to rethink spawn larva, not remove ability/spellcasting on wire-frames.
this most people dont know but blizzard intentionally added chronoboost/mule/spawn larva just to make macro more demanding, smart casting "bug" made it easier as intended thats why they fixed it in this patch.
On April 23 2010 10:21 ploy wrote: Archerofaiur your saying that building depots/pylons/overlords having decision making tensions is, at absolute best, a huge stretch.
Do you really want to get into a debate about which has more decision making supply or Spawn Larva? Pretty sure Id win that one
On April 23 2010 08:34 Archerofaiur wrote: [quote]
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?
I really believe he could still play competitively with 1 finger on each hand
hehe yeh probably
I just don't see why anyone should need to live a skrewed up life just cos of a shit UI in a game they enjoy just to stay competative. The better mind should win everytime not the best muscles/genes/lifestyle that allows access to the most practice time.
20 hours a week seems like enough to me. 40 hours if its your actual job you'd put that in as a matter of course but should we be doing that just to be mechanically capable as non-pro-housed players? I think not.
Well I guess here is where we disagree... SC:BW supports almost 300 Koreans playing SC:BW full time. And there are hundreds (thousands?) more Koreans who would play it full time if they had the opportunity. And there are a lot of non-Koreans who would do it too, though it's hard to say how many. I don't want someone who is playing 20 hours a week to be a top player. Maybe we are just using the words good/great differently. Yeah, someone playing 20 hours ought to be able to be pretty good, but not winning major tournaments...
I agree completely with this. Its actually a very subtle subject thinking about it. Its all about the balance of what it should take to be a top player. Playing 40 hours compared to 20 should give a reward for the extra effort that's for sure. But after a certain point(a physical skill check i.e. xyz apm) hours played the physical check should become irrelevant between top players and its all about the strategy and decisions weighed. So I guess I just want the maximum number of ppl to get over the physical check/requirement to get to focus on the mind part of the game so that we have the biggest possible scene where it would one day be viable outside of Korea to play games full time in the near future rather then just a pipe dream.
I also find it a good measure how much ppl should play that often korean progamers say they wouldn't let their children become progamers, but i'd wonder if the hours where a lot less if they'd think differently so that their kids could have a 'normal' social/work life also.
Its all so subjective. Lets just hope servers can get online asap so we can just play more eitherway =)
Very interesting changes, Bind locations is going to be very useful. New textures / animations are always a good thing to see, as well as new mouse cursors. Also I'd really love to hear the new Protoss track.
I think to enforce that the macro mechanics should take the same amount of skill, they should reduce the energy capacities for the Orbital Command and Nexus to 50 and 25 respectively.
does anyone know why they haven't listed some of these changes? and damn, bind locations are back which i'm glad but they're f5-8 and i have small hands, plus my current keyboard has the fkey row about an inch away from the number row =( i'll just have to be a fuckin champ and suck it up
COOL BUG FIXES: Right clicking somewhere while holding CTRL no longer gives the Attack-Move command, it just Moves. Often people would re-bind hotkeys while trying to run away and it would Attack-Move and suicide instead.
I'm so impressed to see how much Blizzard really cares about us and what we have to say.
COOL BUG FIXES: Right clicking somewhere while holding CTRL no longer gives the Attack-Move command, it just Moves. Often people would re-bind hotkeys while trying to run away and it would Attack-Move and suicide instead.
I'm so impressed to see how much Blizzard really cares about us and what we have to say.
<3
In ZvZ this was a nightmare when trying to run away with lings from banes and sometimes they won't listen to you ...
^ I don't understand either :E It was such a funny post. :D
On topic, why the fc are bind locations on F5-F8? So retarded.. Havn't rly used or seen any changes couse i've been going all in proxy gates all game..
On April 23 2010 07:15 forgotten0ne wrote: Yay, my stubborness to refuse to bind hatch+queen to the same key triumphs!
Honestly, if you're fast enough, having to take the extra 0.2 seconds to bounce back to base and larva spawn is a good thing. It allows you to check for idle units, spot backstabs, and just keep a better control of what's going on.
lol I was stubborn too tbh. I'm actually glad they made this change. Everyone should be happy. Macro shouldn't be that easy.
1. I can't get the download because I have a PPPoE wireless set up that makes me have to restart the download every 30 seconds to get ONE BAR....
2. Zerg's macro is "use it or lose it" so if I miss ONE CAST because all of my 240+ apm is going to making sure my weak individual unit streangth army doesn't get ass raped by a toss with sentries I should not be punished by actually playing the real point of the game... (armies fighting armies) Whilst Terran and to some extent Protoss can use it all at once to catch up... You have 100 energy at a nexus and you have a CyCore and a forge and are Upgrading, plus two gateways and a Robo you can EASILY macro up again while blowing your energy and thus catch up....terran can spam YES SPAM mule, zerg Ooops you have a queen with 50 energy you lost one spawn larva and are behind on macro GG.
3. Zerg really don't have anything else to use energy on besides "heal" which is only useful when microing to beat a banshee or void rush. Then you have creep tumor which is useful maybe MAYBE 3 times, per queen.
4. Zerg have no REAL answer to force multiplication units anymore. Before w/ BW terran's MM made Marines a unit that was on paper weaker than Hydras BETTER than Hydras, admittedly the micro got pretty intensive sometimes but with intelligent hotkeys and "T" moving marines made it a bit easier, but zerg had the lurker, which if the zerg kept up with upgrades meant that 2 lurkers could kill marines with medics. Tech progression kept the Zerg with a slight advantage until SV's hit the field, but then Zerg had to answer w/ ultra/defiler/crackling. This sort of progression/ ingame balance is not really possible for zerg anymore. Once medivacs hit the field the Zerg need to hit certain numbers of units to be able to kill even ONE terran unit, such as 8 Hydra so you can kill ONE marine. Yes this adds up pretty quickly esp if you are using roaches as meat shields...
I have a replay and it would take me awhile to find it but I will look if someone asks, where 5 2/2 w/ both cavern upgrades finished Ultras and 60 2/2 (all upgrades finished) Lings PLUS 12 Mutas (2/0) got WIPED OUT by 30 marines 15 Marauders and 12 medivacs. I had map control + 4 expo's the terran didn't even have his natural. And this force wiped my army off the face of the map... Yes I micro'd yes I had my lings come in from behind the bioball, and YES I DID try to knock the medivac number down w/ my mutas...
Do the Math here...I know I know I could have used an infestor or two to do some DOT damage to the marines plus prevent them from moving around as much... Didn't think I'd have to though I was so far ahead on Tech tree, and had such a massive army of WELL upgraded units that I well just didn't consider the fact that so few units could dominate such a huge army of T3 mix and +2 upgrades on the main forces....Well, I was wrong, I killed 5 marines TOTAL in that whole assault.. Part of it was the SCV's repairing the Medivacs (which I noticed about 5 seconds in to the battle, and started trying to pick off marauders w/ my mutas) And partly because he had 3/2 upgrades on his ground units and +2 armor on the medivac's But can anyone HONESTLY tell me there is a good reason for this to even remotely be possible? In the replay he doesn't even MICRO, he just stims then hits a move....so no I wasn't out played by a better player just screwed by game mechanics
AND NOW AND NOW AND NOW they take away my ability to effectively use the ONLY MACRO OPTION YOU GAVE ZERG. and in exchange I get a mild infestor buff and a rather large queen speed nerf....Thus making early Air rush all the more effective against me? why?
I really don't like the zerg decals. They're really stupid and look like crap. I think they should just skip them for zerg in all honesty. Placing them on the ground next to the building was a bad call.
Action correspondence in the interface should be as close as one to one as possible. Starcraft 2's upper bound for difficulty is already impossibly high, so I doubt noobs will start dominating the ranks just because of a few UI tweaks. A good philosophy is to cut whatever BS you can so the more interesting stuff gets more attention.
Do ranked up units get stat bonuses in game or are ranks merely cosmetic/tied to achievements?
It would be pretty sweet if ranked up units got small stat bonuses (like +1 dmg per rank +1 armor every 2 ranks or something)... it would be a nice way to reward good micro.
Only two i dont like are metamorph (what the heck?) and Instructor should be before mentor imho.
Sweet, thanks; but what is the significance of the ranks? Do higher ranked units get stat bonus? Are ranks tied to achievements? (E.g., metamorph zergling unlocks special portrait?)
On April 23 2010 11:04 innoby wrote: 2. Zerg's macro is "use it or lose it" so if I miss ONE CAST because all of my 240+ apm is going to making sure my weak individual unit streangth army doesn't get ass raped by a toss with sentries I should not be punished by actually playing the real point of the game... (armies fighting armies) Whilst Terran and to some extent Protoss can use it all at once to catch up... You have 100 energy at a nexus and you have a CyCore and a forge and are Upgrading, plus two gateways and a Robo you can EASILY macro up again while blowing your energy and thus catch up....terran can spam YES SPAM mule, zerg Ooops you have a queen with 50 energy you lost one spawn larva and are behind on macro GG.
TLO doesn't even bother hotkeying his queens and goes back to base to macro, yet seems to be doing just fine not that this matters, but honestly, double tapping your hatcheries really isn't the end of the world. You say Terran and Protoss can use up all their energy to catch up, but that isn't really the case. Unless a terran build extra production facilities in advance, the sudden surge in income won't be able to be disposed of on the spot and thus effectively hinders your macro. The same goes for Protoss; being able to chrono robos/cyb cores all at once loses its appeal when your build or reaction time was tailored around you getting a specific unit/upgrade at a precise time.
Also, when you now cancel a larvae's production, you get it back. It doesn't disappear anymore!
Finally, though you cannot use the hatchery's icon anymore, you can still click on the minimap and it works just the same.
As for the rest, Z is currently dominating the asia servers for a reason Yes, you do have answers.
Only two i dont like are metamorph (what the heck?) and Instructor should be before mentor imho.
Sweet, thanks; but what is the significance of the ranks? Do higher ranked units get stat bonus? Are ranks tied to achievements? (E.g., metamorph zergling unlocks special portrait?)
No stat bonuses I'm pretty darn sure of that. Achievement-wise not that I know of. At least not in the ones implemented so far. Presumably there will be such achievements once the game hits shelves.
I think it's more of a aesthetic thing if anything. It'd be pretty sweet to get an "Executor" probe and taunt ur opponent with it x]
List of changes I've noticed I haven't seen posted yet:
More undocumented changes:
Defensive structures now show a range circle when you go to create them. Gas has a different look when being harvested Creep tumors look slightly different Spawning pools now show zerg "decal" like the hatchery does. Greater spire has a much cooler evolution now. Chrono boost has new sound effect. Baneling eggs look a bit different. Unable to zoom in camera as far (bug?) All race have a unique supply icon now Zerg spawning pools show decals now. Sentries now have their correct portait.
I group all of my hatches on 4 and all my queens on 5. When I want to inject larva I hit 5shiftV and cast it on the minimap by clicking on the hatcheries (the squares are quite easy to click with a high tolerance) so I don't have to go back to base. I really don't know why people are complaining since its so easy to just click on the minimap.
I don't know if anyone else has caught this, but the layout for a Sentry's Force Field takes about 1 second to "fade in" so that you can see where you place it... Can someone say "Ninja Nerf?"
Method for injects is just double tapping the queen, now each queen has her own and using the spell. Takes a second longer and you get a nice hotkey to your queened expansions + exact timing even if queens are out of sync (can watch the energy).
On April 23 2010 14:47 gibb wrote: Method for injects is just double tapping the queen, now each queen has her own and using the spell. Takes a second longer and you get a nice hotkey to your queened expansions + exact timing even if queens are out of sync (can watch the energy).
Found: There is no longer tournaments for the top 8 (At least in Plat). Any idea how they are going to implement the Pro League, or why they might have got rid of the top 8 tournaments?
The incredible irony of this whole arguement is that Nony, for all the fight hes putting up, agrees that Spawn Larva should have more decision making.
That's just retarded...
Obviously no one in their right mind is going to be arguing AGAINST adding decision making. Every one knows that decision making is incredibly important in an RTS.
The obvious question you were constantly doding in your posts is should additional mechanical requirements be introduced just for the sake of having mechanical requirements?
man these new dance moves CRACK ME UP, break dancing zergling ftw
edit: I thought cybernetics core had an animation for when it was actually doing something(all those spinning things) and when it was idle thos spinning things didnt move at all.
I thought the point of Collosus having loooong ass legs was so they can walk over stuff? Them being blocked by a forcefield which goes like halfway up their legs doesn't make sense IMO.
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)
Your first response to me doesn't make sense. You're the one that said how difficult an action should be is directly related to how much decision making was involved. That's all I had to do to refute that is to explain how and why there are other factors involved when determining how difficult an action should be. The best solution is for there to be enough significant decisions involved in the game to reasonably distribute the amount of actions it takes to keep the game competitively healthy. In my opinion, it's more important for the game to be competitively healthy than for every action to involve a decision. But we can have both. I'm sure there is a certain percentage of meaningful actions you need to have fun while playing the game just as there is a certain difficulty of performing actions needed to keep the game competitive. They are both important considerations. You wanted to say there was only one. I am saying there is another. Responding to me by acting as if I'm saying there is only one is feeble.
Your second response is also sort of tossing my post out the window. Macro moves need to require a significant amount of action to keep diversity of strategy alive. Cutting them too severely isn't an option. If people are saying they can't have fun playing the game because when they play Zerg they don't like having to do Spawn Larva, and they'd have fun if a more significant decision was involved when doing Spawn Larva, then sure let's have Blizzard make it have more of a decision. But severely reducing the difficulty of the act of doing it (or removing it completely) has major repercussions for other aspects of the game.
Nony, as protoss, how much decision making is involved when you proxy a pylon, attack and then warp-in the EXACT units that you need based on what you see in the middle of the battle, and get those units immediately with another short cooldown for even more units ?
I hate this side of Blizzard. they did this allready to Diablo2 and now to SC2. They patch random trivial bullshit like race cursors while there are much more important things to focus on.
[B]On April 23 2010 17:40 decemvre wrote: Nony, as protoss, how much decision making is involved when you proxy a pylon, attack and then warp-in the EXACT units that you need based on what you see in the middle of the battle, and get those units immediately with another short cooldown for even more units ?
And i can't cancel eggs and get larva back ?
I'm only a budding plat/gold player (placed plat/gold over multiple resets, depends how much caffeine i have before placement games), but the fact that you have to look away from whatever battle you're having, giving up micro, to move your screen to an area covered by a pylon power field, is pretty punishing.
Yes, the more you practice, the faster it becomes, but the difference between queing gateway units versus using warp gates is one of the skill factors of playing protoss.
Proxy pylons aren't going to be exactly where you're fighting. What are you going to do, move forward, then stop to place a pylon, so you're always fighting in a screen with a power field?
A small change in the mineral/gas count can be seen too. Whenever you're spending the money on a building or getting it back from cancelling, the numbers no longer jump, but have this cute scrolling across the values inbetween. Like an old school flip clock.
Pretty, but impractical. Just makes it take longer to see your damn money.
[B]On April 23 2010 17:40 decemvre wrote: Nony, as protoss, how much decision making is involved when you proxy a pylon, attack and then warp-in the EXACT units that you need based on what you see in the middle of the battle, and get those units immediately with another short cooldown for even more units ?
And i can't cancel eggs and get larva back ?
I'm only a budding plat/gold player (placed plat/gold over multiple resets, depends how much caffeine i have before placement games), but the fact that you have to look away from whatever battle you're having, giving up micro, to move your screen to an area covered by a pylon power field, is pretty punishing.
Yes, the more you practice, the faster it becomes, but the difference between queing gateway units versus using warp gates is one of the skill factors of playing protoss.
Proxy pylons aren't going to be exactly where you're fighting. What are you going to do, move forward, then stop to place a pylon, so you're always fighting in a screen with a power field?
Precisely. If you haven't noticed good protoss players simply make 1 pylon next to the zergs base before you do any timing attack. And are then able to get the exact units they need without any sort of planning ahead.
It doesn't need to be in the middle of the battle, just a small distance away.
On April 23 2010 17:40 decemvre wrote: Nony, as protoss, how much decision making is involved when you proxy a pylon, attack and then warp-in the EXACT units that you need based on what you see in the middle of the battle, and get those units immediately with another short cooldown for even more units ?
And i can't cancel eggs and get larva back ?
Whoa I never said anything about the egg cancel change... The post you responded to was about the wireframe casting change.
I don't really do warp-in rushes so I'm not the person to ask... but I would guess there are quite a few timing issues to decide and deciding which units to build is pretty important too. The short cooldown doesn't mean there's less of a decision to make. The micro involved has a ton of variables. Positioning and Sentry spells are super important and how you do each of them will change from situation to situation. I don't know. As a top competitive player, I am making a million decisions about the smallest things all the time. I need everything to be as perfect as possible. I don't want to sound too condescending or whatever, but it'd probably hurt you more than help you if I went through every little thing I consider when doing things. You're better off keeping it simple -- try to have good mechanics, scout well and make a good unit composition.
COOL BUG FIXES: Right clicking somewhere while holding CTRL no longer gives the Attack-Move command, it just Moves. Often people would re-bind hotkeys while trying to run away and it would Attack-Move and suicide instead.
To all the Zerg players - how do you macro? What's your technique? Someone up there wrote something about binding queens and hatches but I didn't exactly get it ;/
On April 23 2010 18:36 Cuber wrote: To all the Zerg players - how do you macro? What's your technique? Someone up there wrote something about binding queens and hatches but I didn't exactly get it ;/
As of patch 9, it's not possible anymore. You used to be able to select your queen and cast the inject on the bottom selection of a hotkeyed hatchery. Now spell casting is only allowed on buildings that you physically have in front of you in your view.
God I can't even play zerg right now everything feels weird, the larva showing up when its under-construction and the fact that they broke there UI so I can't use spawn larva threw the control panel...I hope this is a bug!
Pretty lame to disable a feature that would be used by custom maps and such...
i'm convinced Q&A testers aren't testing zerg very thoroughly..or are just really bad. how could the select larvae problem, egg cancel for extra larvae buildup problem, and especially all banelings/corruptors/overseers that hatch move immediately to hatchery's rally point wtf..
On April 23 2010 07:03 Zelniq wrote: * apparently this allows for a major exploit to get extra larvae to spawn while 3 eggs are morphing, then canceling the eggs and getting more larvae, allowing players to continuously increase larva count, allowing for some insanely strong zergling rushes
That's exactly the reason it was't possible in BW. Also, larva = production time for other races, cancelling a unit still lost you the production time already spent for it for terran and toss, but since zerg have a different mechanic, losing the larva was the "equivalent" penalty. With the Queen spawning so much larvae it becomes less of an issue, except for early rushes, which may even need a fix.
the solution to fix this extra larvae problem, but keep the cancel-egg feature in is very very simple: if there are ever any more than 3 larvae at a hatchery, kill extraneous larvae till it's down to 3. Exception is if the larvae spawned from Queen's Spawn Larvae ability.
On April 23 2010 18:36 Cuber wrote: To all the Zerg players - how do you macro? What's your technique? Someone up there wrote something about binding queens and hatches but I didn't exactly get it ;/
As of patch 9, it's not possible anymore. You used to be able to select your queen and cast the inject on the bottom selection of a hotkeyed hatchery. Now spell casting is only allowed on buildings that you physically have in front of you in your view.
I still don't get it ;/ Could you explain it? What's under what bind, steps u make etc.
i think its a lame idea to let ppl cancel larva exactly what lololol said, larva morphing is a marine bar that goes up. and if we cancel marine it goes to 0 and normally larva die. it was fair but now its unfair imo
u get rushed and u have just started 4 drone, u can cancel and get 8 ling. this concept will help zerg get even more econ in the early stages
On April 23 2010 19:16 MorroW wrote: i think its a lame idea to let ppl cancel larva exactly what lololol said, larva morphing is a marine bar that goes up. and if we cancel marine it goes to 0 and normally larva die. it was fair but now its unfair imo
u get rushed and u have just started 4 drone, u can cancel and get 8 ling. this concept will help zerg get even more econ in the early stages
Am I missing something or can Terran cancel his marine and make an SCV with those minerals. I don't say that this change is a good one, but your argumentation does not make any sense.
On April 23 2010 19:03 Zelniq wrote: the solution to fix this extra larvae problem, but keep the cancel-egg feature in is very very simple: if there are ever any more than 3 larvae at a hatchery, kill extraneous larvae till it's down to 3. Exception is if the larvae spawned from Queen's Spawn Larvae ability.
So you should always try to use hatchery-spawned larvae first? Maybe give them a red party hat so that you can tell the difference?
This whole "get larva back" thing is stupid. Zerg is not Protoss and not Terran. Zerg never was able to start a unit and then switch to another unit for free when they feel like it. The only reason why they would be able to do that now is because some newbies probably were bitching about how it is so unfair for zerg that canceling units costs larvae.
Did Blizz look at the larva mechanic in BW and think "well, it was made in 1998, so let's fix it." ??? It's like they didnt stop to think why it was done that way in the first place.
On April 23 2010 19:16 MorroW wrote: i think its a lame idea to let ppl cancel larva exactly what lololol said, larva morphing is a marine bar that goes up. and if we cancel marine it goes to 0 and normally larva die. it was fair but now its unfair imo
u get rushed and u have just started 4 drone, u can cancel and get 8 ling. this concept will help zerg get even more econ in the early stages
Not that i'm defending the change but your arguement is flawed in that you can instantly start making a unit again after canceling and don't lose anything for deciding instead of a marine you want a marauder or ghost but a zerg would be stuck either waiting for more larva to spawn or using up his macro potential on something that the other races can already do freely.
I don't like the change personally cos it was quite interesting and tense when you used up your larva and where stuck with them. But it is in tune with what terran and protoss can do with their production.
Considering how strong early terran and protoss cheeses can be this is a good change after some consideration.
the difference is to make 4 marines i must finish some of them while with the larva u can just break them and then make w/e u want its actually really much in favor of zerg if u think about it
if u cancel the marine then 10seconds goes to waste, aka the rax was "idle" for 10 sec
if u have 3 eggs with lings and cancel it didnt idle at all, because the eggs didnt stop more larva from coming. so u can just pop up 7 eggs to make drones for example
On April 23 2010 07:03 Zelniq wrote: * apparently this allows for a major exploit to get extra larvae to spawn while 3 eggs are morphing, then canceling the eggs and getting more larvae, allowing players to continuously increase larva count, allowing for some insanely strong zergling rushes
That's exactly the reason it was't possible in BW. Also, larva = production time for other races, cancelling a unit still lost you the production time already spent for it for terran and toss, but since zerg have a different mechanic, losing the larva was the "equivalent" penalty. With the Queen spawning so much larvae it becomes less of an issue, except for early rushes, which may even need a fix.
i dont see this being a huge issue yet since everyone sucks compared to sc1 but later on in theory it will start getting really imba
On April 23 2010 18:36 Cuber wrote: To all the Zerg players - how do you macro? What's your technique? Someone up there wrote something about binding queens and hatches but I didn't exactly get it ;/
As of patch 9, it's not possible anymore. You used to be able to select your queen and cast the inject on the bottom selection of a hotkeyed hatchery. Now spell casting is only allowed on buildings that you physically have in front of you in your view.
I still don't get it ;/ Could you explain it? What's under what bind, steps u make etc.
Lets say you have 4 queens for 4 hatcheries. Have both the queens and the hatcheries to a controlgroup, lets say '4". Push 4 -> R -> shift -> left-click hatchery icon 1, hatch icon 2, hatch icon 3, hatch icon 4., there you just injected larva to all of your hatcheries in like two seconds. The queen closest to the hatchery you left-clicked on will inject larva to that hatchery.
I agree with the change they made at least, the old way almost didn't require macro at all to do perfectly and that's just not right for a macro ability.
Hopefully they revert the cancel-egg change though, it worked fine they way it has always been with larvas dying if you cancel a unit, I'm even assuming it's a bug because it's just dumb. (Oh, and that 'select larva' selects eggs if there is no larva at the hatchery also has to be a bug.)
On April 23 2010 19:03 Zelniq wrote: the solution to fix this extra larvae problem, but keep the cancel-egg feature in is very very simple: if there are ever any more than 3 larvae at a hatchery, kill extraneous larvae till it's down to 3. Exception is if the larvae spawned from Queen's Spawn Larvae ability.
Causes inconsistency on hatcheries using and not using spawn lava.
but I think that being able to cast Transfusion on one of the portraits was really usefull, maybe not many were those to use this ability in a fight, but now queen is evenmore only a macro unit and Zerg is the sole race to have only 1 spellcaster...
edit : for the larva, i think the S selectings eggs is quite disturbing. Also I always found that selecting multiple larva by hand (not with the hatchery button) should have let you make multiple units at the same time, pressing a key only once, and not pressing ten times the same shortcut letter like it is now.
On April 23 2010 19:16 MorroW wrote: i think its a lame idea to let ppl cancel larva exactly what lololol said, larva morphing is a marine bar that goes up. and if we cancel marine it goes to 0 and normally larva die. it was fair but now its unfair imo
u get rushed and u have just started 4 drone, u can cancel and get 8 ling. this concept will help zerg get even more econ in the early stages
Not that i'm defending the change but your arguement is flawed in that you can instantly start making a unit again after canceling and don't lose anything for deciding instead of a marine you want a marauder or ghost but a zerg would be stuck either waiting for more larva to spawn or using up his macro potential on something that the other races can already do freely.
I don't like the change personally cos it was quite interesting and tense when you used up your larva and where stuck with them. But it is in tune with what terran and protoss can do with their production.
Considering how strong early terran and protoss cheeses can be this is a good change after some consideration.
A hatchery produces a unit every 15 seconds(x2 for zerglings), the morph time of the unit is a delay, it's not affecting your production speed, you will be spawning a unit every 15 seconds, no matter what the morph time is. Normal production buildings lose the time spent producing the unit up to the point you cancel it, you can't get it back, but you can get the larva back and practically lose no production time.
For example: you cancel a unit that was building for 15 seconds in a standart production building and queue a different one, after a minute you will have 45 seconds of actual buildtime for your new unit. You cancel an egg and build a different unit. After a minute you would still produce 4 units = 60 seconds of hatchery production time. With the old mechanic you would produce 3 units = 45 seconds of hatchery production time(equivalent to the example I gave, but worse if you cancel quickly or better if you cancel late).
Also, the new mechanic allows a hatch to have over the limit of 3 larva at the same time, by morphing and cancelling eggs, so it would keep producing new larva, despite that the larva aren't actually being used up. This leads to 6 pool producing 10 zerglings instead of 6.
Totally sweet new help window. Gonna help me with my sadness when I loose a situation cuz I click on it accidentally the next time.
(3) most exciting: now you can cancel a egg and make it back into a larva with full return Isn't that cute. Don't ever punish a player for doing mistakes again, they could start crying. Alas its the "After WoW-Era" where everything has to be smooth and friendly to mentally challenged people who want to go platinum in multiplayer.
On April 23 2010 21:06 T33K3SS3LCH3N wrote: Totally sweet new help window. Gonna help me with my sadness when I loose a situation cuz I click on it accidentally the next time.
That would be totally your fault since you can disable those buttons in the options.
On April 23 2010 20:17 MorroW wrote: the difference is to make 4 marines i must finish some of them while with the larva u can just break them and then make w/e u want its actually really much in favor of zerg if u think about it
if u cancel the marine then 10seconds goes to waste, aka the rax was "idle" for 10 sec
if u have 3 eggs with lings and cancel it didnt idle at all, because the eggs didnt stop more larva from coming. so u can just pop up 7 eggs to make drones for example
On April 23 2010 07:03 Zelniq wrote: * apparently this allows for a major exploit to get extra larvae to spawn while 3 eggs are morphing, then canceling the eggs and getting more larvae, allowing players to continuously increase larva count, allowing for some insanely strong zergling rushes
That's exactly the reason it was't possible in BW. Also, larva = production time for other races, cancelling a unit still lost you the production time already spent for it for terran and toss, but since zerg have a different mechanic, losing the larva was the "equivalent" penalty. With the Queen spawning so much larvae it becomes less of an issue, except for early rushes, which may even need a fix.
i dont see this being a huge issue yet since everyone sucks compared to sc1 but later on in theory it will start getting really imba
You can cancel units further down the line it doesn't have to be the 1st marine being built just click the last marine you've got queued up.
If you wanted to get a maruader instead of a marine instantly just like a ling instead of a drone the same time would be lost. But remember you can have multi rax/gate with terran and toss.
The exact production mechanic is different but then it needs to be to keep the races some what distinct.
Well, I agree with zerg queen changes with inject larvae. Coming from sc1 and playing zerg, macro was definitely hard. Having to constantly make drones and then make sure to send them to minerals once they spawned, constantly grouping new units, setting rallies, harassing, and macroing were all difficult but not impossible. Zerg was even difficult because of the sheer volume of units. What happens when you get past 4 groups of units? You can't just 1a2a3a4a anymore... I started out playing zerg in sc1 with 50APM. I was terrible. But through practice I was able to up my APM to about 225 in about 2 months. I constantly worked on mechanics because I remember reading a post on TL saying having good game mechanics was the best way to be good at SC. It was true, I got a lot better at the game; I understood it more, learned how to scout better and be paranoid all the time for High Templar drops.
After reading through this post/topic I am kind of disappointed in the players. I keep reading that people are afraid to reach across the keyboard to hit a key or that they need to constantly go back to their base to inject larvae. I just got my beta key a couple of days ago and one of the first things I did was hit S-O for my overlord, nothing happened. But it was ok, I quickly got used to the new S-V I had to hit for the overlord. I believe what separates good players is their ability to adapt. Of course hotkeys are going to change (people are too afraid to move their left hand) but if you practice hitting the key then you will feel what it is like to move your hand that distance. It is hard to explain but each key has a different feel to it and you will get used to it if you practice.
Secondly, I saw many people mention that no one wants to continuously have to go back to their base and arbitrarily macro. But if you played sc1 zerg and were busy muta harassing someone, and if you didn't continually macro and advance your tech then you know you could be sitting at 1000+ minerals. Macro is hard especially when you are trying to focus your attention on micro. Combining macro and micro definitely takes a lot of APM, but that is where your practice will pay off, it will also put you in a highly favorable position to win the game. SC2 shouldn't be immune to APM requirements and practicing to get good at it. You can see fast/precise actions in any sport/e-sport out there and all of these require practice. Guitar hero you need fast hands/timing/rhythm, halo you need to move your gun and target accurately and quickly, even basketball requires immense practice and execution. With basketball you can't just go out there with a good plan and expect to win, you need to run fast, shoot accurately, and have team work. SC shouldn't be different, you need to macro and micro effectively along with a good plan to be good. So, get out there, practice hotkeying, practice checking back at your hacteries and hitting V really fast, and practice integrating micro and macro until it is seamless.
The issue about the Terran mules; I think if someone has waited until they could summon 6 mules simultaneously has lost out on 6 mules of minerals over the course of time it has taken to build up enough energy for that. That is a potential weakness that an opponent could exploit. Attack them earlier when they should have had 6 mules of minerals worth of units. Of course they will eventually make up the minerals if you wait too long. Perhaps a higher energy requirement for mules is needed? So if you wait till you have 200 energy then you may only receive 3 of them.
Finally, even if they do make macro ridiculous easy then I still think professional players will still prevail. Pros have excellent scouting, they are able to adjust their strategies and have enough experience to recognize what their opponent is doing. I believe the pro player's APM will be greater than the less skilled player even if macro is easy. The ability to attack with several groups of units; perhaps doing a nidus into a players main base while attacking one of their expansions at the same time. Low APM players that just like to 1a all their units won't be able to keep up.
It looks like they also slightly buffed the AI. I checked out a custom game to review the new 1v1 map and selected TvT. While this normally leads to 1-2 marines being built and not much more, this time I had drop ships floating around my expansions, a mix of marines/marauders/tanks and even had a battle cruiser join the battle. It also sent some 2 marines to scout/harass. It is still very easy to beat but I thought it was nice to see the simplest AI not be as simple anymore.
Just an update for everyone who thought Spawn Larva was fine.
Question: What ideas do you have for the queen tension right now, because I heard you mention that earlier? Dustin Browder: Um, we're going to wait and see on that one, like I don't have anything right now in the bucket that's necessary. I have seen queens win and lose games with transfusion, one way or the other. It's not as often as it could be, but that might be balanced on Transfusion or it might not be. Um, I've certainly seen creep tumors be used very effectively. I think there's probably more to be done out there. I'm kind of waiting to see what the community does and I've seen some high level players do some kind of silly things with creep spreading that's kind of fun. Right, so um were going to wait and see how that goes.
This is exactly the same kind of langauge Dustin used right before Proton Charge was changed to Chronoboost. Dustin is on the fence and if enough people voice their opinion this will be improved.
We are going to keep fighting and get Zerg the macro they deserve!
You can no longer an scv from building by just moving it. You need to hit an extra key (halt production) before you can move your SCV away from the new building.
-B.net sets away status for you when you're afk for some time.
-Ctrl+F11 supposed to record the video via SC2 but apparently F11 is chat log so it doesn't work. If anyone figured out how to work it, let me know. (I think you can customize hotkeys now so maybe switching them up would work.)
-F5-F8(or 9) allows u to hotkey locations on map (Like in BW, just different keys)
You can no longer an scv from building by just moving it. You need to hit an extra key (halt production) before you can move your SCV away from the new building.
ah good. it was like that in sc1 too. very good news^^
You can no longer an scv from building by just moving it. You need to hit an extra key (halt production) before you can move your SCV away from the new building.
You can no longer an scv from building by just moving it. You need to hit an extra key (halt production) before you can move your SCV away from the new building.
This almost made me nerd rage last night. Lost my stupid scv to a probe harass
You can no longer an scv from building by just moving it. You need to hit an extra key (halt production) before you can move your SCV away from the new building.
man played a few games with the new not able to cast spells on icons and it went pretty terribly, probably should have played a few custom games before doing placements :p
But after the 3rd game i'm getting the hang of it but its a chore compared to what it was, wasting so much energy on the queen its a ridiculous step backwards.
I guess this is just the usual stuff with blizzard games to have mindless shitty grind as standard
On April 23 2010 07:31 DrSmoke wrote: Do I need to point out that "casual" players tend to not be in the beta. So.
1. Casuals won't know it was ever there. 2. By the time sc2 hits stores I think they will have it figured out, considering that if blizz wants money, they have to make the game accessible to a large group of gamers.
Are you kidding me?
Look at the massive number of copper/bronze/low silver players and all the people who got beta through WoW and tell me that "casual players tend to not be in beta"
It's still super low compared to the amount of casual players that'll be playing at release. Aaaaaaand I bet a lot of the casual players in beta didn't even know about casting spells on wireframes.
Yep, I double tapped back to my base to use chrono :S Oh well, I guess now I'm doing it right now, without changing what I'm doing... Easier to do it in the early game- I tend to forget once I have 2-3 Nexii and a bunch of warpgates.
On April 23 2010 10:10 Senx wrote: He grew tired beacuse you're trying to have a debate with him on a topic that he wasn't even talking about in the first place?
As ive said before the underlying issue, and the reason this UI change took place, is the inherient shallowness of the macro mechanics.
Or is discussing the root of the problem somehow not applicable to a discussion of a problem?
Maybe, and I'll admit, I've enjoyed some of the past debates on macro mechanics- for some reason I thought you were originally for proton charge and against chrono boost, because proton charge didn't promote 'macro-style play'. But in any event, at some point the point can be dropped and gets annoying if every time the word 'macro' is mentioned, the old Archer debates get dredged up. I'm sure we could agree that increasing decision making is welcome (that was my defence for chrono over proton), but need we tread on old territory every time 'macro' is mentioned? (If you've watched Up by Pixar, 'macro' turns into a 'SQUIRREL!' word- completely sidetracking the entire conversation. Very frustrating after a time.)
Aside from the obvious changes, couple of annoying things I've noticed with the interface: When I check my ladder standing or someone else's ladder standing the guy under is highlighted instead of the person you're checking. Also I've noticed it doesn't add people when I try to add them from my friend's recent matches. So I can't check the ranks/standings of the people my friend played for example. Not sure if it's intentional or not.
You can no longer an scv from building by just moving it. You need to hit an extra key (halt production) before you can move your SCV away from the new building.
This almost made me nerd rage last night. Lost my stupid scv to a probe harass
Personally very glad of this... how many times did I accidentally grab my SCV and stop building production when catching another SCV that was back from scouting or building? Too many.
Part of my problem is the 3d view... if you turn off HP bars it is easy to lose guys behind buildings. Marines especially. All the more reason to leave the HP bar on I guess. So when are they going to make them less intrusive but still visible (transparency please).
I was completely playing like trash last night with these new changes, the spawn larva hotkey in combo with the new targeting limitations really threw me off my game. got put in gold... ech. I was not aware of being able to cast by using the minimap though, so I will have to see how this turns out after I've gotten used to the new hotkey and that new targetting method.
I'm trying to use infestors in every build possible right now, with mixed effects. mostly it just leads to horrible losses due to nowhere near enough gas for enough combat units, leaving piles of useless lings. Infested terrans are still horrible, their low HP and duration make them still not worth the energy. burrowing infestors also barely comes up, the strat I'm trying to use is to parasite the big units, at the same time as fungal growthing the rest of the army, preventing them from getting forward to snipe the infestor.
There is constant talk that koreans are seeing major zerg imba-ness, and I'm wondering if it's just due to overall different gameplay styles, or whether they've found out stuff we havn't yet...
Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!!
That is a good change..
I disagree. Makes using queen a bit more annoying for spawn larva, and occasionally I use the icons to kill off my own units to free up supply cost, especially when just messing around lol
EPT
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/b0XZt.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/jP5Gs.jpg)
.
![[image loading]](http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/4582/screenshot010q.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4437/screenshot012iq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/8868/screenshot014d.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/7206/screenshot015g.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/8435/screenshot016il.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/6/62/Orbital_Command.png/250px-Orbital_Command.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.sc2armory.com/img/protoss/buildings/nexus.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/5369/screenshot025n.jpg)
