EPTThe perception of formations vs. the "magic box". - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Lomak
United States311 Posts
| ||
|
Chocobo
United States1108 Posts
On November 16 2010 02:42 Seam wrote: Not a troll, he's just not willing to listen. 'Magic boxing' Mutas is manual. Formations are Auto. That's why people are opposed to it. So if activating a formation required 4-5 clicks instead of 1, would it be acceptable then? | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
On November 15 2010 22:40 telfire wrote: You don't seem to actually know what you're talking about. There are no hard counters in this game besides air units that can attack ground verses ground units that can't attack air (or visa versa). Other than that, the counters are all EXTREMELY soft, compared to StarCraft: Brood War especially, but also compared to almost every other RTS out there. Additionally, SC2 is in many ways superior to Brood War. That is undeniable. There are many, many great new features that simply weren't there before. The game is newer, and undoubtedly there are many things about Brood War that are better than SC2 as well. But the games are very similar. And a LOT more people play SC2 than did BW (including a massive amount of people who "liked" BW but never got into it because of the ridiculous mechanical requirements). You and others are grossly overestimating how much the mechanics changes impact the game. You are entitled to your opinion about video games and are free to play any game you like, but you are in the minority and stating your opinion as fact is stubborn and stupid. You are acting like my great grandpa... "in my day we had to walk uphill both ways". It really doesn't matter now. Yours is an anti-change attitude and actually has nothing to do with the mechanics or the things we are talking about, and just everything to do with the way you view the world. You don't like things to be any different, just like a lot of people I know who suffer from the same disease. I hope you get over it someday. None of what you said has any real weight considering I doubt you ever significantly played BW...but I'll humor you. SC2's units hard counter each other MUCH more strongly than anything in BW. I have no idea where you got the idea that BW has any significant hard counter at all. NAME ONE. I don't care about other RTSs. I'm comparing BW and SC2, since your OP took issue with that game specifically. What exactly makes SC2 superior to BW? The game's overall infrastructure is about the only thing I can think of. The matchmaking system and custom game selection system is very impressive. In-game, it's way to early to pass judgment on the overall gameplay, but I do feel there are fundamental issues that make the game less interesting than BW. Those are personal opinions, of course, though. And do you have actual numbers? Are there really more people playing SC2 than BW? That may indeed be the case, but you're also comparing a game more than ten years old. Back when it came out, there was barely internet and everyone was still using AOL. Are you really going to make that comparison? Really? That's just retarded. I'm terribly sorry you never got into BW because the game was too hard for you. God forbid it requires you to practice to get good at it. Mechanics are central to a game. If you want to just THINK a game through, look for a turn-based strategy game, or a simulator like SupCom where the game plays itself for you. BW set itself apart from other games because playing at the top level was like being a master of an instrument. Interpretation is of tantamount importance, but if you can't actually play the instrument, what does it matter? I would love to see the same in SC2: who care how well you can play SC2 at a strategic level if you can't actually put into action what you're thinking? Maybe we're looking for different things, but whether you like it or not, SC2 is a part of BW's legacy. As someone who played BW since nearly when it came out, and as someone who has followed the pro scene for years, I can't look at or play SC2 without seeing BW in it. For people like me (who, sadly, yes, have quickly become the minority here on TL), SC2 is not just SC2. SC2 is starcraft 2, and unless you really do choose to deny BW's existence, the inevitable effect it's had on SC2, and the effect it's had overall on competitive gaming, you can't easily ignore such a connection, either, no matter how much you want to. But I digress. It's really not that I'm not open to change. I play SC2 more than I play BW now. In fact, I'd largely stopped playing BW for a while before SC2 came out. I'm also a lot better at SC2 than I ever was at BW. I accepted the fact that SC2 would be a different game a long, long time ago. However, I feel the changes are ruining a good game's chances at being a great game, much less giving it a shot at holding a candle to its predecessor. Whether you like it or not, BW was an amazing game, and believe it or not, I want SC2 to be as good of a game as BW is. SC2 is, indeed, the future of the franchise, and yes, BW will eventually die out, probably within the next couple years. This is the group of people such as myself that you group together as being like your grandpa are so critical of this game. It needs to succeed and has a responsibility to do so as BW's successor. | ||
|
Bleak
Turkey3059 Posts
Who is saying BW is not an amazing game? All we're trying to make some people understand is that if it takes you less clicks to play the game because of issues regarding interface, unit pathing, or any other solved technical limitation regarding the control of the game, this does NOT outright make a game inferior or worse. | ||
|
Hurkyl
304 Posts
On November 16 2010 07:11 PH wrote:Mechanics are central to a game. If you want to just THINK a game through, look for a turn-based strategy game, or a simulator like SupCom where the game plays itself for you. Yes, please do. You'll find near universal agreement that it's a good thing when the user interface makes it quick and easy to do the things you want to do, see the things you want to see, and minimizes the amount of time you need to spend on boring and repetitive tasks. The same is true for just about any type of computer software. Real-time strategy games stick out as a sore thumb as being one of the few (only?) genres of computer software that has a vocal segment actively demanding software with a poor user interface. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On November 16 2010 07:26 Hurkyl wrote: Yes, please do. You'll find near universal agreement that it's a good thing when the user interface makes it quick and easy to do the things you want to do, see the things you want to see, and minimizes the amount of time you need to spend on boring and repetitive tasks. The same is true for just about any type of computer software. Real-time strategy games stick out as a sore thumb as being one of the few (only?) genres of computer software that has a vocal segment actively demanding software with a poor user interface. You are just taking what people are saying and re-labeling it as a "poor user interface" because no one is actually saying that. The thing is the gameplay control IS the interface, more or less. It would be like saying an FPS needs to have auto-aim and if it doesn't it needs to get with the times and have a better user interface. Then when people say that makes the game too easy your response is "shooting people in the head is boring and repetitive so that time should be minimized". On the other hand, maybe the game just isn't for you. Ultimately any level of user input is a user interface, so you could pigeonhole the entire gameplay experience into a "better user interface". Hell you could even argue fog of war as a poor user interface, why should the game hide information that is there? Personally I am not too bothered by how much easier SC2 is, but at the same time I am really glad they didn't go any farther than they did with making it easier. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On November 16 2010 07:26 Hurkyl wrote: Yes, please do. You'll find near universal agreement that it's a good thing when the user interface makes it quick and easy to do the things you want to do, see the things you want to see, and minimizes the amount of time you need to spend on boring and repetitive tasks. The same is true for just about any type of computer software. Real-time strategy games stick out as a sore thumb as being one of the few (only?) genres of computer software that has a vocal segment actively demanding software with a poor user interface. that's because, unlike turn-based strategy games, real-time strategy games have a resource call time that you have to manage. it's kind of like posting in a CS forum that crosshairs should snap to heads to reward the team with better synergy rather than the team with the best aim. | ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
On November 16 2010 06:53 Hurkyl wrote: Then we have finally reached a nontrivial point on the "no automation" - "all automation" scale. Do note that something similar is already in Starcraft 2-- when is the last time your Marine ball was torn apart by Zerglings because they were all stupidly attacking the Mutalisks instead? EDIT: I guess you could say it even existed in Starcraft 1 -- priorities are the reason why Marines were attacking the Mutalisks and not the Zerglings. Of course there is priority, but I'm talking about a feature that allows you to customize that priority on the fly or as I said in the second case, where the AI automatically calculates and determines the best possible way to focus down your opponent's army in that exact situation and carries it out automatically. Where do you draw the line as to how much is trivial and how much is non-trivial? Obviously my example is a pretty extreme one in terms of automation, but logically there's no reason not to go that far except for whatever arbitrary expectation of gameplay a person has. It wouldn't necessarily make the game better or worse, just very different. You would basically be saying little more than, "This much pointless clicking is ok, but that much is not." which is why this is a pointless argument to begin with. Starcraft 2 is what it is, nothing more and nothing less. There are plenty of other games out there to fit the various preferences players have. Admittedly, not all of them are popular and most aren't anywhere near as popular as Starcraft, but I think that in itself says something about the formula Blizzard has used for these particular games. The fact is that we like a certain amount of pointless clicking and mundane repetition. Whether it's to satisfy our APM e-penises, separate ourselves from our competition, or just to constantly give us something to do, it's pretty clear that it hasn't made the game any less popular than its counterparts. A lot of what has driven Starcraft is really the fact that it isn't easy or accessible. Elitist as that may sound, that's just something that has become part of Starcraft's identity. Blizzard obviously realized this when making the sequel and while they did remove some of the mundane mechanics, they added new ones such as Larvae Injection, MULE, Chrono Boost, and Creep Tumors to fill some of the void left behind. Also, the argument about a good interface making easier to do what you want it to is not true at all. The interface and its limitations are part of the challenge of playing the game. Starcraft isn't just about what you want to do in the game. It's about whether or not you're physically able to do it. By separating the interface itself from the game, you're separating a large part of the game experience that the developers purposely designed for you to have. This is a little more obvious in rhythm games such as DDR and Guitar Hero where physical dexterity is an assumed requirement, but it's really a requirement in any game that's not turn-based from Puzzle Bobble to Street Fighter. I think the "Strategy" part of Real-Time Strategy tends to skew peoples' impression of what the game should be or what it's intended to be and leads them to think that strategy alone should decide the winner when that's clearly not the case. | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On November 16 2010 07:09 Chocobo wrote: So if activating a formation required 4-5 clicks instead of 1, would it be acceptable then? It still wouldn't be acceptable because after those 5 clicks presumably they'd stay in formation whereas magic boxing requires constant attention. Your point though that increasing the number of clicks required is correct though... people wouldn't mind having auto-magic box as long as whatever the auto was, was as hard to maintain as magic box. People want that element of difficulty to remain | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On November 16 2010 07:36 mahnini wrote: that's because, unlike turn-based strategy games, real-time strategy games have a resource call time that you have to manage. it's kind of like posting in a CS forum that crosshairs should snap to heads to reward the team with better synergy rather than the team with the best aim. Couldn't have said it better myself. | ||
|
MadVillain
United States402 Posts
Someone care to enlighten me? | ||
|
Bleak
Turkey3059 Posts
that's because, unlike turn-based strategy games, real-time strategy games have a resource call time that you have to manage. it's kind of like posting in a CS forum that crosshairs should snap to heads to reward the team with better synergy rather than the team with the best aim. You want 10 units to move together, they do whatever they want if you just click and wander around, get stuck behind each other, and in turn your enemy kills them. If you micro them properly, they do move correctly. How can this be really related to the core gameplay of any game? Games should have good and responsive controls, not clunky and bad. RTS is a genre of decision making, it should be as less as it can on mechanics side. FPS is mechanics for most of it, because you need to have good aim, you need to be precise and have very quick reflexes and perception to beat your opponent. Your analogy isn't similar, auto-aim completely takes everything what makes an RTS. The biggest difference is that in FPS, mechanics is the game itself, to put it simply, it's just who can point and click faster than your opponent. It is a game of perception and precision. Anything else, flanking or other strategies regarding movement is secondary. You might have a perfect plan, but your mechanics would be terrible, so whatever you can do, you cannot win if your enemy has better aim and control over his crosshair. That's fair and what it should be, FPS is all about it, who can draw and shoot gun faster, will prevail. Starcraft is a complex game with many things to take into account, you cannot really simplify it as "clicking" or "pushing buttons", you do many different things with those actions, and they all add up in the long/short run to give you the advantage you need to win the game. Macro and Micro are two parts of it, I'd call Macro as "mechanics", as it can be comparable to repeated actions in an FPS such as pointing the crosshair to somewhere and clicking to shoot, and Micro itself is a completely different game in itself, it is something seperate and enjoyable from Starcraft, because it is all related to your choosing of the way you move your units in order to get the absolute advantage over your opponent. It also has the mental side, you may have to decide in miliseconds on the right decision, and this is what makes it really enjoyable when you pull it off. As with what I called "strategy" in the paragraph regarding FPS above, I'd call Micro as "secondary" to the game. You might have the perfect micro, but not enough units. You might have the perfect micro in the mental side, but not enough handspeed to pull it off, which is an issue of practice (keep in mind that this "handspeed" shouldn't be insane, it should be enough to make that action work). You might still have the perfect macro and micro, but your opponent might have a better unit composition than you. What really makes SC an RTS, in the sense of decision making or strategy (not to be confused with the "strategy" term in above paragraphs) is things such as build orders, the specific decision to tech switch, knowing the right time to expand, training the right unit in the right situation and knowing the timings to attack and defend. The game should be focused as much as possible on this, because this is what takes the biggest effort from the mental side. Leading 15 dragoons in a perfect formation through a small choke takes nothing but muscle memory, it is just a repeated action. It doesn't make much effort at all, but practice. Sure, you also practice your strategies in game, but what you actually gain is an experience regarding that strategy, which kind of strengthens the connections in your brain and makes you think. With enough practice, you think nothing when you move those dragoons correctly. This is why it shouldn't matter TOO much, it definitely has a place in the game and it should matter, to micro perfectly you need to be fast with your mouse, however, if you're doing nothing but trying to get over game's lack of design regarding controls, it doesn't take you anything but your muscle memory. I find Starcraft 2 perfectly balanced in this regard, and I think devs have done a great job on this. | ||
|
Kantutan
Canada1319 Posts
| ||
|
tetracycloide
295 Posts
Why does the game work the way it does and not some other way? Game designers made it that way. Q.E.D. Everything else in this thread is just arguing over whose opinion of the game design is right which is, though a frequent idiom of 'discussion' on the internet, asinine and futile. | ||
|
n00bination
United States102 Posts
On November 16 2010 08:08 Bleak wrote: As with what I called "strategy" in the paragraph regarding FPS above, I'd call Micro as "secondary" to the game. You might have the perfect micro, but not enough units. You might have the perfect micro in the mental side, but not enough handspeed to pull it off, which is an issue of practice (keep in mind that this "handspeed" shouldn't be insane, it should be enough to make that action work). You might still have the perfect macro and micro, but your opponent might have a better unit composition than you. What really makes SC an RTS, in the sense of decision making or strategy (not to be confused with the "strategy" term in above paragraphs) is things such as build orders, the specific decision to tech switch, knowing the right time to expand, training the right unit in the right situation and knowing the timings to attack and defend. The game should be focused as much as possible on this, because this is what takes the biggest effort from the mental side. Leading 15 dragoons in a perfect formation through a small choke takes nothing but muscle memory, it is just a repeated action. It doesn't make much effort at all, but practice. Sure, you also practice your strategies in game, but what you actually gain is an experience regarding that strategy, which kind of strengthens the connections in your brain and makes you think. With enough practice, you think nothing when you move those dragoons correctly. This is why it shouldn't matter TOO much, it definitely has a place in the game and it should matter, to micro perfectly you need to be fast with your mouse, however, if you're doing nothing but trying to get over game's lack of design regarding controls, it doesn't take you anything but your muscle memory. I find Starcraft 2 perfectly balanced in this regard, and I think devs have done a great job on this. I have so many issues with your viewpoint that it's borderline nerdrage, but I'll sum up my main issue with your argument. Starcraft 2 is not meant to simply be a game, but a spectator sport. Thus, entertainment value and balance, in my opinion, should take precedence over all else. Entertainment value comes from understanding the game and recognizing the insane skill of progamers who execute actions we could never imitate. If you put micro and macro as secondary to build orders, units compositions, etc, you strip away that entertainment factor. Let's take BW for example. If micro and macro didn't stand up to straight up counters, would Jangbi have had any hope of taking on Nada's huge tank army with nothing but arbiters, dragoons, and templar? No way in hell. Would the spectacle of Flash cranking out a billion M&M against some poor zerg thinking mass ultra can overcome the beast of Flash's macro exist? I don't think so. These are iconic moments in BW history that everyone remembers because they were in awe of the incredible skill these moments required. Let's say that Starcraft was indeed the way you described, where perfect micro and macro could be overcome by strong build orders, unit compositions, and solid strategy. Suddenly, anybody can beat a mechanically superior player by simply outthinking them. Where's the fun in that? Sure, Calm is fun to watch for some of his wacky strategies, but he isn't nearly as entertaining to watch as say, Jaedong, who can brute force his way to victory over armies that are built to counter him. Several years down the line, when everything has been developed to be as efficient as possible, we will begin to see standardization of builds. People will know what is on the table and what is a potential threat further into the game. This is where mechanical skill will rule over trendy builds, and this is where (again, in my opinion) the greatest games will happen. | ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
On November 16 2010 08:08 Bleak wrote: You want 10 units to move together, they do whatever they want if you just click and wander around, get stuck behind each other, and in turn your enemy kills them. If you micro them properly, they do move correctly. How can this be really related to the core gameplay of any game? Games should have good and responsive controls, not clunky and bad. RTS is a genre of decision making, it should be as less as it can on mechanics side. FPS is mechanics for most of it, because you need to have good aim, you need to be precise and have very quick reflexes and perception to beat your opponent. Your analogy isn't similar, auto-aim completely takes everything what makes an RTS. The biggest difference is that in FPS, mechanics is the game itself, to put it simply, it's just who can point and click faster than your opponent. It is a game of perception and precision. Anything else, flanking or other strategies regarding movement is secondary. You might have a perfect plan, but your mechanics would be terrible, so whatever you can do, you cannot win if your enemy has better aim and control over his crosshair. That's fair and what it should be, FPS is all about it, who can draw and shoot gun faster, will prevail. Starcraft is a complex game with many things to take into account, you cannot really simplify it as "clicking" or "pushing buttons", you do many different things with those actions, and they all add up in the long/short run to give you the advantage you need to win the game. Macro and Micro are two parts of it, I'd call Macro as "mechanics", as it can be comparable to repeated actions in an FPS such as pointing the crosshair to somewhere and clicking to shoot, and Micro itself is a completely different game in itself, it is something seperate and enjoyable from Starcraft, because it is all related to your choosing of the way you move your units in order to get the absolute advantage over your opponent. It also has the mental side, you may have to decide in miliseconds on the right decision, and this is what makes it really enjoyable when you pull it off. As with what I called "strategy" in the paragraph regarding FPS above, I'd call Micro as "secondary" to the game. You might have the perfect micro, but not enough units. You might have the perfect micro in the mental side, but not enough handspeed to pull it off, which is an issue of practice (keep in mind that this "handspeed" shouldn't be insane, it should be enough to make that action work). You might still have the perfect macro and micro, but your opponent might have a better unit composition than you. What really makes SC an RTS, in the sense of decision making or strategy (not to be confused with the "strategy" term in above paragraphs) is things such as build orders, the specific decision to tech switch, knowing the right time to expand, training the right unit in the right situation and knowing the timings to attack and defend. The game should be focused as much as possible on this, because this is what takes the biggest effort from the mental side. Leading 15 dragoons in a perfect formation through a small choke takes nothing but muscle memory, it is just a repeated action. It doesn't make much effort at all, but practice. Sure, you also practice your strategies in game, but what you actually gain is an experience regarding that strategy, which kind of strengthens the connections in your brain and makes you think. With enough practice, you think nothing when you move those dragoons correctly. This is why it shouldn't matter TOO much, it definitely has a place in the game and it should matter, to micro perfectly you need to be fast with your mouse, however, if you're doing nothing but trying to get over game's lack of design regarding controls, it doesn't take you anything but your muscle memory. I find Starcraft 2 perfectly balanced in this regard, and I think devs have done a great job on this. This is so incredibly off-base, I don't even know how to approach this one. First of all, your entire position is based on the baseless assumption that mechanical dexterity should matter less than strategy and decision making in an RTS. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this is how it should be or how it is intended to be. Secondly, reducing macro to repetitive mechanical actions is completely wrong. Macro involves just as much thought and decision making as micro. Knowing how to manage your economy and controlling your production and unit composition is a key part of macro. Brushing that off like it's some trivial, mindless matter comparable to aiming your cursor in an FPS is absurd and simply shows that you lack understanding of the game. Similarly, your comments about FPS games also show that you completely lack an understanding of those as well... Just out of sheer curiosity, what is your vision of what an RTS interface SHOULD look and act like? I'm not talking general concepts like "It should be responsive.", but if you were to redesign Starcraft 2's UI today, what exactly would you do? | ||
|
Protoss_Carrier
414 Posts
On November 16 2010 08:27 tetracycloide wrote: I cannot fathom how this thread hasn't been locked by now. The OP is nothing more than the author calling out everyone, a group of people not even defined in the post itself, as a hypocrite. They're clearly not discussing in good faith because they literally open with a huge ad hominem about everyone that disagrees with them before they've even had a chance to disagree. Why does the game work the way it does and not some other way? Game designers made it that way. Q.E.D. Everything else in this thread is just arguing over whose opinion of the game design is right which is, though a frequent idiom of 'discussion' on the internet, asinine and futile. I agree, the OP's attitude shows no good faith in a good discussion. | ||
|
Lomak
United States311 Posts
Secondly, reducing macro to repetitive mechanical actions is completely wrong. Macro involves just as much thought and decision making as micro. Knowing how to manage your economy and controlling your production and unit composition is a key part of macro. Brushing that off like it's some trivial, mindless matter comparable to aiming your cursor in an FPS is absurd and simply shows that you lack understanding of the game. Indubitably. Sorry I don't have much to add, I just really like the word Indubitably. Cannot pass on the chance to use it. | ||
|
Djeez
543 Posts
NOOBIFIED! (damn how do we embed on this board) | ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
On November 16 2010 08:48 Djeez wrote: This thread in a nutshell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Mxypu9WC8c NOOBIFIED! (damn how do we embed on this board) I'm pretty sure Warcraft 2 had Hotkeys and I'm pretty sure that Starcraft didn't have Auto-Casting... -_- Just throwing it out there. | ||
| ||
