EPTSpawn = Attack Move - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
| ||
|
collective
Canada138 Posts
On July 09 2010 23:56 Klive5ive wrote: Considering that you can still issue an attack command if you wish; the new system is surely better, well done Blizz. you can issue an attack-move rally command, or just standard attack-move (not rally)? theres no reason not to give players both options. this thread has shown that there are situations where both types of rally's are useful and needed | ||
|
MadJack
Peru357 Posts
On July 08 2010 10:10 freshiie22 wrote: BW was a great game but lacked allot of good game play mechanics such as if you have your eye off your spawning units for a second they would die. I know this probably frustrated allot of people as it did to me. Allot of people are forgetting that Starcraft 2 is not BW and therefore will have different game play and mechanics. I lol'ed when I read this. What mechanics are you talking about? setting your rally point and forget about it? No wonder why we never had an international winner of WCG in SC1 :D | ||
|
TheNomad
United States134 Posts
| ||
|
HubertFelix
France631 Posts
On July 10 2010 00:00 Misrah wrote: if it makes the game easier, then hell yes! do anything necessary! god forbid you have to baby sit your units ever- sc2 players have more pressing things to think about... like macro or micro ohh wait... This is not about easier or harder mechanics, it's about units doing what you told them to do. It's about control. One another problem beside bringing supplies troop to a battle is when you're defending your expo as Zerg. You put your rally point in your main base to stack troops and the units getting out your expand just suicide. You could stop it waiting for them to pop and give them a 3rd order: -(Me) Rally point -(Computer) attack -(Me) go your f**cking rally point It's just stupid. | ||
|
collective
Canada138 Posts
On July 10 2010 00:10 HubertFelix wrote: This is not about easier or harder mechanics, it's about units doing what you told them to do. It's about control. yes, and the most control is where the game would provide you the ability to choose Rally-Move and Rally-Attack-Move. I think everyone would be happy to have both options available in-game. I've posted a suggestion thread on the official forums regarding this, here: http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25968747183&postId=259664203839&sid=5000#0 | ||
|
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
| ||
|
Zortch
Canada635 Posts
Personally, I'd go for move-rally any day for when your production buildings are being camped as has been said before. Also, having to rally to your nat and then moving the troops up adds to the game in my opinion. | ||
|
collective
Canada138 Posts
On July 10 2010 00:19 Misrah wrote: This thread makes me sick. i want to play a game that i don't need to play- blizz come up with a macro for everything so i can be a better strategist. If people are so worried about having to think about a few things, and or actually have mechanics to play the game- chess would be a great option, i mean you don't need any mechanics for that game, or macro- but micro you need that. this is about improving the mechanics to make the final release more fun, theres nothing wrong with that. we love the game, and that's why we want to have the mechanics portion perfected to our liking. metaphorically, it's almost as if blizzard invented automatic transmission. then forced everyone to switch back to manual transmission. Granted, alot of people love manual, but alot of people love automatic as well. Give the car owner the option to choose. | ||
|
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
On July 10 2010 00:26 mijones wrote: this is about improving the mechanics to make the final release more fun, theres nothing wrong with that. we love the game, and that's why we want to have the mechanics portion perfected to our liking. metaphorically, it's almost as if blizzard invented automatic transmission. then forced everyone to switch back to manual transmission. Granted, alot of people love manual, but alot of people love automatic as well. Give the car owner the option to choose. LOL improving mechanics? what mechanics? the game is going to be playing its self soon. 1a2a3a is now just reduced to click rally points, use mbs to build army- which automatically walks to desired location and attacks. what a joke. If your idea of fun is just sitting around and playing a game a monkey could play then fine, but for me and thousands of other players, i actually want to move my fingers once and awhile. | ||
|
morimacil
France921 Posts
On July 09 2010 23:34 Piy wrote: I like anything that makes the game harder, and move cmd rp makes the game harder. So I like that better. Same. i really cant understand posts like these :/ Harder to play does not mean better. Why would it? Pour some honey on your mousepad, stick razorblades on your mouse, and press "down, right, A" in sequence when you want to attack move, and the game just got a lot harder and more painful, but definitly ot better or more fun. A model like chess, is quite a lot more interesting in my opinion. Chess is incredibly easy to play. There really isnt much to it, you just move a few pieces around on a board, and dont even need to do it fast. The hard part is not managing to actually play the game in chess, the hard part is making the right choices at the right time, having correct strategy, and outsmarting your opponent, that is very very hard. Even though every noob can play chess, to beat someone really good depands a lot of skill, practice, and is very hard, to the point of sometimes being near impossible. hard to win + fun makes a good game, hard to play just makes impossible for new players to learn, without adding anything to it. | ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
| ||
|
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
On July 10 2010 00:36 morimacil wrote: i really cant understand posts like these :/ Harder to play does not mean better. Why would it? Pour some honey on your mousepad, stick razorblades on your mouse, and press "down, right, A" in sequence when you want to attack move, and the game just got a lot harder and more painful, but definitly ot better or more fun. A model like chess, is quite a lot more interesting in my opinion. Chess is incredibly easy to play. There really isnt much to it, you just move a few pieces around on a board, and dont even need to do it fast. The hard part is not managing to actually play the game in chess, the hard part is making the right choices at the right time, having correct strategy, and outsmarting your opponent, that is very very hard. Even though every noob can play chess, to beat someone really good depands a lot of skill, practice, and is very hard, to the point of sometimes being near impossible. hard to win + fun makes a good game, hard to play just makes impossible for new players to learn, without adding anything to it. Just going out on a limb here- but you strike me as a new player, and even more you strike me as someone who does not play BW. BW is really really easy to play, but really really hard to play well. tha tis a known fact. Chess is the same way- very easy to play the game, but very hard to master. In the end there is a learning curve. Someone that plays the game with more speed and dexterity should be rewarded. However in sc2 becuase all of the mechanics to play the game are so easy, the skill ceiling is so easy to achieve- that this game is not going to be fun, and is not going to last. | ||
|
Holy_AT
Austria978 Posts
Yes the attack move command was much more comfortable but I think its nothing rthat will matter in the middle or long run of SC II This thread has unfortunatly become somewhat of a flameware, because some people think they need to show their *skillz* and *diz* the others by telling them they have no skill when they say they dont quite agree with the change. I hope this discussions will focus more on the game pros and cons. | ||
|
collective
Canada138 Posts
On July 10 2010 00:36 morimacil wrote: i really cant understand posts like these :/ Harder to play does not mean better. Why would it? Pour some honey on your mousepad, stick razorblades on your mouse, and press "down, right, A" in sequence when you want to attack move, and the game just got a lot harder and more painful, but definitly ot better or more fun. A model like chess, is quite a lot more interesting in my opinion. Chess is incredibly easy to play. There really isnt much to it, you just move a few pieces around on a board, and dont even need to do it fast. The hard part is not managing to actually play the game in chess, the hard part is making the right choices at the right time, having correct strategy, and outsmarting your opponent, that is very very hard. Even though every noob can play chess, to beat someone really good depands a lot of skill, practice, and is very hard, to the point of sometimes being near impossible. hard to win + fun makes a good game, hard to play just makes impossible for new players to learn, without adding anything to it. Yes, yes, a thousand times yes, exactly! this is exactly right. The less focus placed on mechanical chores means more energy is freed up to focus on the most important aspect of RTS games - actual strategy. Every time blizzard makes an improvement to the mechanics to free up useless APM, there are always BW players that have to complain and say it will make the game too easy etc. But in the first phase of beta, I didn't even see pros saying that there wasn't enough actions to do. They didn't complain about MBS or automine anymore. It freed up time to focus more on their scouting, or the new macro mechanics, which made for more interesting strategic games. BW players that complain about every mechanical enhancement reminds me of old people complaining about technology, saying that back in the day they drove to town in horse & buggy, and refuse to want to use the latest & greatest. | ||
|
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
On July 10 2010 00:48 mijones wrote: Yes, yes, a thousand times yes, exactly! this is exactly right. The less focus placed on mechanical chores means more energy is freed up to focus on the most important aspect of RTS games - actual strategy. Every time blizzard makes an improvement to the mechanics to free up useless APM, there are always BW players that have to complain and say it will make the game too easy etc. But in the first phase of beta, I didn't even see pros saying that there wasn't enough actions to do. They didn't complain about MBS or automine anymore. It freed up time to focus more on their scouting, or the new macro mechanics, which made for more interesting strategic games. BW players that complain about every mechanical enhancement reminds me of old people complaining about technology, saying that back in the day they drove to town in horse & buggy, and refuse to want to use the latest & greatest. I highlighted the part where you prove to me your the stereotypical SC2 player. If you don't want mechanics go play chess. Or if you want to play a game that is so easy and everyone can feel good about themselves, go play Halo3. For a second i thought that i could actually have a conversation with you about this. But now that you are the casual, just returned to the SC scene because of SC2 player- and will probably leave this community once the next new games comes around, i really don't feel that by arguing with you I could ever change your opinion. In your eyes less is more, and blizz and activision are prophets from god bestowing an amazing game upon you, a game that you will no doubt turn pro in. | ||
|
morimacil
France921 Posts
but if I have the choice, I prefer a strategy game, where what strategy you do actually matters. I would prefer it much more to a mechanical game, where a win/loss is based more on how much multitasking you can do, how fast you can do it, and little on what your actual decisions are. | ||
|
collective
Canada138 Posts
On July 10 2010 00:55 Misrah wrote: I highlighted the part where you prove to me your the stereotypical SC2 player. If you don't want mechanics go play chess. Or if you want to play a game that is so easy and everyone can feel good about themselves, go play Halo3. For a second i thought that i could actually have a conversation with you about this. But now that you are the casual, just returned to the SC scene because of SC2 player- and will probably leave this community once the next new games comes around, i really don't feel that by arguing with you I could ever change your opinion. In your eyes less is more, and blizz and activision are prophets from god bestowing an amazing game upon you, a game that you will no doubt turn pro in. Why are you being so disrespectful? Now I'm being forced to spend time defending myself rather than contributing to the actual topic at hand. Apologies to readers coming to this thread looking for useful information on the topic. I didn't say that I don't want mechanics, I said that I don't want mechanical chores - meaning mechanics that do not provide value. The game has plenty of mechanics for me to work on that provide value - like scouting, micro-ing units, making efficient use of my macro; they all add up to make for a successful game outcome. Attack-Move Rally mechanic also gives me (not everyone, but at least me, and the majority of voters on the Poll) value. StarCraft is the only game I ever cared to commit to, ever since the game came out. I'm not a casual player with regards to StarCraft. No other game has captivated me over the years like StarCraft. I couldn't care less for Halo, although I do admit that Chess has a place in my history, but only before StarCraft came along. StarCraft is the evolution of Chess in my opinion, it gives the player more options, style, and self expression. When StarCraft came out over 12 years ago, Chess was dead to me. | ||
|
clusen
Germany8702 Posts
On July 10 2010 01:11 morimacil wrote: I do understand the fact that people who spent hours upon hours training their multitasking skills and trying to get higher APM hate to see that "skill" go to waste. but if I have the choice, I prefer a strategy game, where what strategy you do actually matters. I would prefer it much more to a mechanical game, where a win/loss is based more on how much multitasking you can do, how fast you can do it, and little on what your actual decisions are. A RTS it not only about "strategy" it is about strategy and execution. Otherwise your perfect game would just include a script that you write beforehand(your strategy), and you watch some AI-player executing it. Does that sound fun? I don't think so. | ||
|
Marou
Germany1371 Posts
| ||
| ||
