|
I'm going to raise $100 for a tournament with special rules to ensure the most skilled player wins.
1. Every time you want to build a worker, you have to arm wrestle a midget,
2. Your units have to be in a heart-shaped formation when attacking, and you have to micro all the units to make it happen.
3. Workers want to be loved, and will go on strike if you don't click on them enough.
4. Building tech structures requires the player to get our of his chair and jump through a literal hoop.
5. You have to pay taxes on your income. You can get deductions by filling out the proper forms.
I'm absolutely baffled by people saying we need to remove Multi-Building Selection and such to make the game more skill-dependent. Sure, it's annoying to do, uninteresting to watch, and is basically just tedious busywork no one likes, but it's harder!
Sure, we could try to make maps where the death ball was easier for Z to deal with. Maybe if we make maps even bigger, Z can counterattack while throwing up hatches everywhere to force the P to play whack-a-mole! Maybe if bases had a very long rush distance but a very wide open natural, P would have trouble defending an expo and couldn't rush up a techy doomball. Maybe we could make Xelnaga towers that provide really useful scouting, or even make custom maps with Xel'Naga scanners or something. That'd be a novel fix to the scouting issue, eh? Making an abandoned Comsat Station from SC1 in your natural that all races could capture and use? Maybe even only Z, if you thought it was a balance issue?
Oh, wait, that requires thought, effort, energy, and playtesting.
Much better to make the players just have to do so much tedious bullshit that even pro games could be decided on who shoveled the most tedious bullshit.
|
On March 17 2011 16:21 SwiftSpear wrote:
I think we're seeing a massive amount of volitity in the match and map build order understanding compared to brood war. People don't understand this game in and out yet. Every 2-3 weeks a new build order that comes out and starts crushing people who should know better, and many build order's are still paper rock scissoring each other, some that aren't really that good ultimately.
MVP made bad decisions, and lost because of it. He probably maid said bad decisions because IM doesn't have the Protosses that are pushing forward the game the way Alicia and Genius are. You can be good at SC2 right now, but to understand the game in a way that you are invincible at this stage is just kinda unlikely.
A huge part of any RTS is that game sense, "can I have my units here on the map right now" will X army beat opponents Y army. The game just hasn't standardized to the point where all exceptions are mapped out yet.
As I read through this thread I was about to post the exact same thing  Thanks.
BW needed years to be discovered and at the moment there is so much competition and so many streams and leagues and tournaments in SC2 are available that the exploration of SC2 is sprinting to eventually get to a point at which BW is at the moment, which involves not only the strategy part but also a good map architecture.
I mean I still like watching BW more than SC2, but it is unfair to say that SC2 is not able to get to that point eventually. Give it some damn time, enjoy watching the progamers and if you can't enjoy that go back to watching BW and look at the state of the game in a year from now.
Also I think it appears more volatile because it is faster paced than BW, so you can't deal with a lot of shit by just having a time advantage. But we have to see in the future how that turns out. Will be fun to bump threads like this in 1 or 2 years from now, just to see what people wrote about the game back then
Trust me, SC2 will get bigger and bigger and bigger. Can't wait to hold the expansion packs in my hands.
|
FFS, Hope Blizzard doesn't get to complacent with SC2's current form.... and take more risks in adding and removing units (either now or in future expansions). That is all i have to say : )
|
On March 17 2011 16:40 Ribbon wrote:
I'm going to raise $100 for a tournament with special rules to ensure the most skilled player wins.
1. Every time you want to build a worker, you have to arm wrestle a midget,
2. Your units have to be in a heart-shaped formation when attacking, and you have to micro all the units to make it happen.
3. Workers want to be loved, and will go on strike if you don't click on them enough.
4. Building tech structures requires the player to get our of his chair and jump through a literal hoop.
5. You have to pay taxes on your income. You can get deductions by filling out the proper forms.
I'm absolutely baffled by people saying we need to remove Multi-Building Selection and such to make the game more skill-dependent. Sure, it's annoying to do, uninteresting to watch, and is basically just tedious busywork no one likes, but it's harder!
Sure, we could try to make maps where the death ball was easier for Z to deal with. Maybe if we make maps even bigger, Z can counterattack while throwing up hatches everywhere to force the P to play whack-a-mole! Maybe if bases had a very long rush distance but a very wide open natural, P would have trouble defending an expo and couldn't rush up a techy doomball. Maybe we could make Xelnaga towers that provide really useful scouting, or even make custom maps with Xel'Naga scanners or something. That'd be a novel fix to the scouting issue, eh? Making an abandoned Comsat Station from SC1 in your natural that all races could capture and use? Maybe even only Z, if you thought it was a balance issue?
Oh, wait, that requires thought, effort, energy, and playtesting.
Much better to make the players just have to do so much tedious bullshit that even pro games could be decided on who shoveled the most tedious bullshit.
This is true to a good degree, the tedious bullshit in SC1 was annoying. Watching SC1 was amazing to me, because I had no idea those people played so well and performed so much of that bullshit that I cannot stand. If I were to watch SC1 with someone who has never played it before:
Me: OMG look at Bisu's amazing micro against those Spider Mines! Perfect targetting, using Zealots to take the hits, excellent moves and spread.
Them: Uh huh. Pretty cool...
Me: Trust me, man, it is REALLY hard. That's why those korean announcers are going nuts!
Them: Oh I believe you, that is pretty fantastic...
Me: W.e man, you just don't get it.
Them: Yep, I don't.
But it definitely built a pro scene that was exclusive and segregated. This was pretty ok for the game to some degree, but probably bad in other degrees. It prevented a lot of access, and it made the good get better and the bad stay bad. Has good parts and bad parts. SC2 is trying to please more people and make a more inclusive game where more people can get involved with eSports. And look... we now have NASL, MLG, GSL, huge amounts in prizes, hundreds of pro-gamers from many degrees of skill sets, many casters and streamers who make a living from SC2 exclusively and hundreds of thousands of followers.
That didn't exist in SC1. So some could argue it is a bad thing... but I think the evidence is pointing in the other direction at the moment.
Let's give it another few months and see what happens to the pro-scene before we make final judgments. Some people predict doom, some predict success. At this point, there is only one way to find out for sure. Give it time.
|
On March 17 2011 06:18 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 06:13 wherebugsgo wrote:On March 16 2011 20:04 mr_tolkien wrote:
To really create a regular fan/viewer base, you need stars, you need guys above the whole cast, guys who have a 90% win ratio and meet in finals, and whose losses are really huge upsets has it happens so rarely. WTF?? No one has ever had that kind of winrate. Flash has a 70 something percent overall winrate, and that's frankly insane. How can you even reasonably expect half of this stuff? Sc2 is not too volatile, it's just too young. multiple players have held that kind of win rate for a while
For a month? Only player I can recall having that kind of a winrate was oov. And he was coached by Boxer, and played four+ years into the life of BW. We're not even into the first year of SC2, changes are still happening, maps are still changing.
It's unreasonable to expect even a 75% winrate out of anyone right now. Very few players have won multiple consecutive starleagues in BW, or even two consecutive starleagues. Nada's feat of six STILL hasn't been reached. It's quite hard to be that consistent.
|
On March 17 2011 16:54 Zanez.smarty wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 16:40 Ribbon wrote:
I'm going to raise $100 for a tournament with special rules to ensure the most skilled player wins.
1. Every time you want to build a worker, you have to arm wrestle a midget,
2. Your units have to be in a heart-shaped formation when attacking, and you have to micro all the units to make it happen.
3. Workers want to be loved, and will go on strike if you don't click on them enough.
4. Building tech structures requires the player to get our of his chair and jump through a literal hoop.
5. You have to pay taxes on your income. You can get deductions by filling out the proper forms.
I'm absolutely baffled by people saying we need to remove Multi-Building Selection and such to make the game more skill-dependent. Sure, it's annoying to do, uninteresting to watch, and is basically just tedious busywork no one likes, but it's harder!
Sure, we could try to make maps where the death ball was easier for Z to deal with. Maybe if we make maps even bigger, Z can counterattack while throwing up hatches everywhere to force the P to play whack-a-mole! Maybe if bases had a very long rush distance but a very wide open natural, P would have trouble defending an expo and couldn't rush up a techy doomball. Maybe we could make Xelnaga towers that provide really useful scouting, or even make custom maps with Xel'Naga scanners or something. That'd be a novel fix to the scouting issue, eh? Making an abandoned Comsat Station from SC1 in your natural that all races could capture and use? Maybe even only Z, if you thought it was a balance issue?
Oh, wait, that requires thought, effort, energy, and playtesting.
Much better to make the players just have to do so much tedious bullshit that even pro games could be decided on who shoveled the most tedious bullshit. This is true to a good degree, the tedious bullshit in SC1 was annoying. Watching SC1 was amazing to me, because I had no idea those people played so well and performed so much of that bullshit that I cannot stand. If I were to watch SC1 with someone who has never played it before: Me: OMG look at Bisu's amazing micro against those Spider Mines! Perfect targetting, using Zealots to take the hits, excellent moves and spread. Them: Uh huh. Pretty cool... Me: Trust me, man, it is REALLY hard. That's why those korean announcers are going nuts! Them: Oh I believe you, that is pretty fantastic... Me: W.e man, you just don't get it. Them: Yep, I don't. But it definitely built a pro scene that was exclusive and segregated. This was pretty ok for the game to some degree, but probably bad in other degrees. It prevented a lot of access, and it made the good get better and the bad stay bad. Has good parts and bad parts. SC2 is trying to please more people and make a more inclusive game where more people can get involved with eSports. And look... we now have NASL, MLG, GSL, huge amounts in prizes, hundreds of pro-gamers from many degrees of skill sets, many casters and streamers who make a living from SC2 exclusively and hundreds of thousands of followers. That didn't exist in SC1. So some could argue it is a bad thing... but I think the evidence is pointing in the other direction at the moment. Let's give it another few months and see what happens to the pro-scene before we make final judgments. Some people predict doom, some predict success. At this point, there is only one way to find out for sure. Give it time.
I'm absolutely in the "wait and see" camp. But I think there are ways to increase the skill cap that make the game MORE fun. It'll just take a lot of work and really creative custom mapmaking to find those things. People saying we can make the game more skill-dependent by making it suck are, I think, taking the easy way out instead of the rewarding way.
|
On March 17 2011 17:00 Ribbon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 16:54 Zanez.smarty wrote:On March 17 2011 16:40 Ribbon wrote:
I'm going to raise $100 for a tournament with special rules to ensure the most skilled player wins.
1. Every time you want to build a worker, you have to arm wrestle a midget,
2. Your units have to be in a heart-shaped formation when attacking, and you have to micro all the units to make it happen.
3. Workers want to be loved, and will go on strike if you don't click on them enough.
4. Building tech structures requires the player to get our of his chair and jump through a literal hoop.
5. You have to pay taxes on your income. You can get deductions by filling out the proper forms.
I'm absolutely baffled by people saying we need to remove Multi-Building Selection and such to make the game more skill-dependent. Sure, it's annoying to do, uninteresting to watch, and is basically just tedious busywork no one likes, but it's harder!
Sure, we could try to make maps where the death ball was easier for Z to deal with. Maybe if we make maps even bigger, Z can counterattack while throwing up hatches everywhere to force the P to play whack-a-mole! Maybe if bases had a very long rush distance but a very wide open natural, P would have trouble defending an expo and couldn't rush up a techy doomball. Maybe we could make Xelnaga towers that provide really useful scouting, or even make custom maps with Xel'Naga scanners or something. That'd be a novel fix to the scouting issue, eh? Making an abandoned Comsat Station from SC1 in your natural that all races could capture and use? Maybe even only Z, if you thought it was a balance issue?
Oh, wait, that requires thought, effort, energy, and playtesting.
Much better to make the players just have to do so much tedious bullshit that even pro games could be decided on who shoveled the most tedious bullshit. This is true to a good degree, the tedious bullshit in SC1 was annoying. Watching SC1 was amazing to me, because I had no idea those people played so well and performed so much of that bullshit that I cannot stand. If I were to watch SC1 with someone who has never played it before: Me: OMG look at Bisu's amazing micro against those Spider Mines! Perfect targetting, using Zealots to take the hits, excellent moves and spread. Them: Uh huh. Pretty cool... Me: Trust me, man, it is REALLY hard. That's why those korean announcers are going nuts! Them: Oh I believe you, that is pretty fantastic... Me: W.e man, you just don't get it. Them: Yep, I don't. But it definitely built a pro scene that was exclusive and segregated. This was pretty ok for the game to some degree, but probably bad in other degrees. It prevented a lot of access, and it made the good get better and the bad stay bad. Has good parts and bad parts. SC2 is trying to please more people and make a more inclusive game where more people can get involved with eSports. And look... we now have NASL, MLG, GSL, huge amounts in prizes, hundreds of pro-gamers from many degrees of skill sets, many casters and streamers who make a living from SC2 exclusively and hundreds of thousands of followers. That didn't exist in SC1. So some could argue it is a bad thing... but I think the evidence is pointing in the other direction at the moment. Let's give it another few months and see what happens to the pro-scene before we make final judgments. Some people predict doom, some predict success. At this point, there is only one way to find out for sure. Give it time. I'm absolutely in the "wait and see" camp. But I think there are ways to increase the skill cap that make the game MORE fun. It'll just take a lot of work and really creative custom mapmaking to find those things. People saying we can make the game more skill-dependent by making it suck are, I think, taking the easy way out instead of the rewarding way.
I agree. I think these are probably in Blizzards mind too though. This has been a concern for a while and many MANY people have voiced those opinions. There is a lot of hate for Blizzard out there (especially on the TL.net boards for some reason), but it is getting harder and harder to ignore the fact that Blizzard is genuinely listening to the community.
There are already some interesting mechanics that really really set aside the goods from the GREATS. I see these in Dark Templar, Warp Prisms, Medivacs, Marine Micro (oh god, I said it), Ravens, Trasfusion, Infestors, Baneling Carpet Bombers (overlord drops), Nydus Worms... These are some fertile ground for great things to blossom from.
But we have 2 expansions to go, and they have openly said that these are to be even bigger than any expansions before it... and if anyone played during the RoC to TFT transition for WC3, that was a HUGE change for the multiplayer scene. Blizz has said there is a little something for everyone in each expansion, so we can probably expect not only a new unit per expansion, but new upgrades, maybe new armor types, possibly new macro mechanics, new map mechanics (low bridges anyone?). Who knows if these things they add won't include a way to raise the skill ceiling? Maybe in a fun way that is interesting to watch, instead of just adding a few more clicks to every round of building units.
I personally (from a Protoss perspective) hope they add a special unit to Protoss that is only buildable from the GATEWAY, and not the warpgate.
How about an air unit that can only be build from a FLYING starport...
These are some different and fun to watch ways to increase the click requirement on macro, that aren't super tedious and repetitive, while providing the audience something to see.
|
On March 17 2011 08:05 Sovern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 07:54 Elefanto wrote:On March 17 2011 07:37 Sovern wrote:
Making mechanics "harder" is laughable. This is a real time strategy game, not a real time mechanics game. The player that executes the better strategy and has better fundamentals like good macro/multitasking/micro deserves to win. Just because someone can manually mine their workers faster or cast spells by clicking on individual units doesn't mean that they should win, like I said this isn't a real time mechanics game, its an RTS.
All that manual mining and no smart casting is, is a hindrance. Of course a lot of the older BW players are going to want to bring back the hindrances because they're so used to them. The way that I see it is that micro/positioning/multi tasking will have a higher skill cap due to not being held back by having to manually click workers to set them to mine or worry about other small things that are really just a hassle. God damnit, did you read the post above yours? Posts like this make me rip my hair. First off it's STARCRAFT, not chess. Second, mechanics are not only the things your talking about. Read the thread man, the point is many units are so fucking effective with simply a-click. If your build directly counters your opponent, you can just a-click and win, even if the opponent has better control. It helps nothing. The best example is the Colossus. EVERYONE can use it to fullest potential, while it does ridiculous amount of damage. Theres no realy position required, no micro, nothing. That's were most people want to start, not removing mbs or automining. If my build directly counters my opponents build I'd sure as hell hope that I'd win. Him having better "mechanics" shouldn't give him the win because this is a strategy game, not a mechanics game..... If my opponent blindly follows build orders and fails to scout my build and adapt he deserves to lose. All of the things that I mentioned that SC1 had (no auto mining/no smart casting) are mechanics.....As for this whole idea that scouting is a huge problem early game, that can be remedied by playing aggressive. If your opponent is trying to cheese you, by playing aggressive you can spot his unit composition and possible see his in base structures to see what his build will consist of.
LOL so you want the game to degenerate to build order rock-paper-scissors.
Great idea you've got there.
That's more or less how most BW ZvZ is, and it's widely considered to be the most boring matchup by spectators. Most PvP is also like that, although to a lesser extent.
Yeah, SC fans find the beauty in those matchups, but to an outside viewer it's boring.
Also, if you wanted SC to be that way, most games will be decided within the first four minutes, before reasonable scouting is even possible. Basically the game would play itself out for you if macro mechanics were really easy; anyone with greater than 40 APM could micro perfectly, and no multitasking would be involved. In fact, I'd probably stop playing if macro mechanics got any easier. I'm actually considering a switch back to BW if the state of the game doesn't improve, because right now it doesn't always feel like the more knowledgeable or skilled player wins. At the moment I'm able to eke out wins in most matchups except PvP and some of the T matchups, but I still hold out hope because the game is young.
On March 17 2011 16:40 Ribbon wrote:
I'm going to raise $100 for a tournament with special rules to ensure the most skilled player wins.
1. Every time you want to build a worker, you have to arm wrestle a midget,
2. Your units have to be in a heart-shaped formation when attacking, and you have to micro all the units to make it happen.
3. Workers want to be loved, and will go on strike if you don't click on them enough.
4. Building tech structures requires the player to get our of his chair and jump through a literal hoop.
5. You have to pay taxes on your income. You can get deductions by filling out the proper forms.
I'm absolutely baffled by people saying we need to remove Multi-Building Selection and such to make the game more skill-dependent. Sure, it's annoying to do, uninteresting to watch, and is basically just tedious busywork no one likes, but it's harder!
Sure, we could try to make maps where the death ball was easier for Z to deal with. Maybe if we make maps even bigger, Z can counterattack while throwing up hatches everywhere to force the P to play whack-a-mole! Maybe if bases had a very long rush distance but a very wide open natural, P would have trouble defending an expo and couldn't rush up a techy doomball. Maybe we could make Xelnaga towers that provide really useful scouting, or even make custom maps with Xel'Naga scanners or something. That'd be a novel fix to the scouting issue, eh? Making an abandoned Comsat Station from SC1 in your natural that all races could capture and use? Maybe even only Z, if you thought it was a balance issue?
Oh, wait, that requires thought, effort, energy, and playtesting.
Much better to make the players just have to do so much tedious bullshit that even pro games could be decided on who shoveled the most tedious bullshit.
You can exaggerate, so I can too.
Let's make a button that autocreates SCVs. And give a timer for supply depots and pylons! Why not make gas geysers auto-fill themselves when they finish buildings?
Let's create a maynard mechanic where when you build a CC five workers from your main transfer over. When a building is idle it'll have a big red exclamation mark over it. You can press a button to find all your idle workers and send them to mine minerals. You can press another button to select all your military units.
Hell, let's just take out all the macro. Just forget command centers, SCVs, etc. Just make it so that we get a steady trickle of minerals and then we all have to decide what to spend it on. Makes the game fair, right? No stupid mechanics you have to do, it's all based on position and skill! The player with the best strategy wins.
Hyperboles are retarded. Don't use them.
|
On March 17 2011 16:40 Ribbon wrote:
I'm going to raise $100 for a tournament with special rules to ensure the most skilled player wins.
1. Every time you want to build a worker, you have to arm wrestle a midget,
2. Your units have to be in a heart-shaped formation when attacking, and you have to micro all the units to make it happen.
3. Workers want to be loved, and will go on strike if you don't click on them enough.
4. Building tech structures requires the player to get our of his chair and jump through a literal hoop.
5. You have to pay taxes on your income. You can get deductions by filling out the proper forms.
I'm absolutely baffled by people saying we need to remove Multi-Building Selection and such to make the game more skill-dependent. Sure, it's annoying to do, uninteresting to watch, and is basically just tedious busywork no one likes, but it's harder!
Sure, we could try to make maps where the death ball was easier for Z to deal with. Maybe if we make maps even bigger, Z can counterattack while throwing up hatches everywhere to force the P to play whack-a-mole! Maybe if bases had a very long rush distance but a very wide open natural, P would have trouble defending an expo and couldn't rush up a techy doomball. Maybe we could make Xelnaga towers that provide really useful scouting, or even make custom maps with Xel'Naga scanners or something. That'd be a novel fix to the scouting issue, eh? Making an abandoned Comsat Station from SC1 in your natural that all races could capture and use? Maybe even only Z, if you thought it was a balance issue?
Oh, wait, that requires thought, effort, energy, and playtesting.
Much better to make the players just have to do so much tedious bullshit that even pro games could be decided on who shoveled the most tedious bullshit.
Your argument is just a rehash of the same old crap that keeps pissing out from some really rude players who don't know anything about BW and think they can make some argument that makes no sense and get like minded people to rally behind you. Your argument requires no thought at all and gets people no where.
Here I have one for you.
Hey I have an idea, why don't we make Basketball 2, where players only have to dribble every 10 steps, and instead of shooting into a hoop they just have to cross a line on the other side of the field. Of course tackling is unfair to bad players who don't know how to hold a ball, so instead of making them learn how to control a ball, lets make it so you can't tackle at all.
The skill required in BW had a side-effect of balancing the game, the examples you mentioned do not balance the game. You obviously have never played BW at a competitive level, even if you say you have, I won't believe you, because everyone who has macro at a decent level much prefers Single-Building-Selection to the imbalanced macro mechanics we have in SC2.
Here are some examples that actually make sense:
More bases require more attention, therefore good macro players will be more efficient on 3 bases than a bad macro player on 3 bases. This is because he can manage his workers more efficiently, and make units more efficiently. Why do you think this is so wrong?
Smart-casting is the reason we have such boring spells that do hardly any damage. So you have to pump a lot of spells out continuously until it looks like a total cluster fuck and no-one can see what's going on.
And try this one for size. Splitting armies take hundreds of clicks, but I bet you think marine splitting is awesome right?
Well in BW the pathing was actually better and you could bunch and split with only a few clicks. It also had this dynamic where armies would not move in great big balls, and you could cut up armies with zerglings by running in between units.
|
On March 17 2011 16:40 Ribbon wrote:
I'm going to raise $100 for a tournament with special rules to ensure the most skilled player wins.
1. Every time you want to build a worker, you have to arm wrestle a midget,
2. Your units have to be in a heart-shaped formation when attacking, and you have to micro all the units to make it happen.
3. Workers want to be loved, and will go on strike if you don't click on them enough.
4. Building tech structures requires the player to get our of his chair and jump through a literal hoop.
5. You have to pay taxes on your income. You can get deductions by filling out the proper forms.
I'm absolutely baffled by people saying we need to remove Multi-Building Selection and such to make the game more skill-dependent. Sure, it's annoying to do, uninteresting to watch, and is basically just tedious busywork no one likes, but it's harder!
Sure, we could try to make maps where the death ball was easier for Z to deal with. Maybe if we make maps even bigger, Z can counterattack while throwing up hatches everywhere to force the P to play whack-a-mole! Maybe if bases had a very long rush distance but a very wide open natural, P would have trouble defending an expo and couldn't rush up a techy doomball. Maybe we could make Xelnaga towers that provide really useful scouting, or even make custom maps with Xel'Naga scanners or something. That'd be a novel fix to the scouting issue, eh? Making an abandoned Comsat Station from SC1 in your natural that all races could capture and use? Maybe even only Z, if you thought it was a balance issue?
Oh, wait, that requires thought, effort, energy, and playtesting.
Much better to make the players just have to do so much tedious bullshit that even pro games could be decided on who shoveled the most tedious bullshit.
Spot on man, spot on...
|
On March 17 2011 17:12 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 16:40 Ribbon wrote:
I'm going to raise $100 for a tournament with special rules to ensure the most skilled player wins.
1. Every time you want to build a worker, you have to arm wrestle a midget,
2. Your units have to be in a heart-shaped formation when attacking, and you have to micro all the units to make it happen.
3. Workers want to be loved, and will go on strike if you don't click on them enough.
4. Building tech structures requires the player to get our of his chair and jump through a literal hoop.
5. You have to pay taxes on your income. You can get deductions by filling out the proper forms.
I'm absolutely baffled by people saying we need to remove Multi-Building Selection and such to make the game more skill-dependent. Sure, it's annoying to do, uninteresting to watch, and is basically just tedious busywork no one likes, but it's harder!
Sure, we could try to make maps where the death ball was easier for Z to deal with. Maybe if we make maps even bigger, Z can counterattack while throwing up hatches everywhere to force the P to play whack-a-mole! Maybe if bases had a very long rush distance but a very wide open natural, P would have trouble defending an expo and couldn't rush up a techy doomball. Maybe we could make Xelnaga towers that provide really useful scouting, or even make custom maps with Xel'Naga scanners or something. That'd be a novel fix to the scouting issue, eh? Making an abandoned Comsat Station from SC1 in your natural that all races could capture and use? Maybe even only Z, if you thought it was a balance issue?
Oh, wait, that requires thought, effort, energy, and playtesting.
Much better to make the players just have to do so much tedious bullshit that even pro games could be decided on who shoveled the most tedious bullshit. Your argument is just a rehash of the same old crap that keeps pissing out from some really rude players who don't know anything about BW and think they can make some argument that makes no sense and get like minded people to rally behind you. Your argument requires no thought at all and gets people no where.
I appreciate your response, which will no doubt be rational and well-argued.
Here I have one for you.
Hey I have an idea, why don't we make Basketball 2, where players only have to dribble every 10 steps, and instead of shooting into a hoop they just have to cross a line on the other side of the field. Of course tackling is unfair to bad players who don't know how to hold a ball, so instead of making them learn how to control a ball, lets make it so you can't tackle at all.
1. You can't tackle in Basketball.
2. Dribbling isn't required because it's hard, it's required because otherwise you'd have no legal way to reclaim the ball. The rule has a point. People here are arguing for making the game harder for the sole purpose of making it harder. If you, for instance, made Corruption an AOE spell that affected an area and was way more important, that would add more skill to the game. It would also serve a purpose, and make the game more interesting in many ways.
The skill required in BW had a side-effect of balancing the game, the examples you mentioned do not balance the game.
Neither do yours! How does having to select every single SCV I make and manually tell it to mine add anything to the game but an extra step?
You obviously have never played BW at a competitive level, even if you say you have, I won't believe you, because everyone who has macro at a decent level much prefers Single-Building-Selection to the imbalanced macro mechanics we have in SC2.
Not even if I link my ICCUP profile? 
You know, when I started playing BW on ICCUP, I didn't have a mouse. I was using my laptop touchpad for a while! You know what everyone told me? Get a mouse! (I did). I wonder why the ICCUP community didn't tell me to stick to my mechanically harder touchpad.
More bases require more attention, therefore good macro players will be more efficient on 3 bases than a bad macro player on 3 bases. This is because he can manage his workers more efficiently, and make units more efficiently. Why do you think this is so wrong?
Who said I did? I think SC2 strikes a pretty good balance, honestly. Having good macro is about having a good memory and having a polished build, not having a million billion APM.
Smart-casting is the reason we have such boring spells that do hardly any damage. So you have to pump a lot of spells out continuously until it looks like a total cluster fuck and no-one can see what's going on.
Sounds like you have a problem with the graphics. If it makes you feel better, smart-casting means having your casters on one hotkey means they clump means LOL EMP. So I imagine we'll end up seeing less and less of that in the future.
And try this one for size. Splitting armies take hundreds of clicks, but I bet you think marine splitting is awesome right?
Little box, right click, little box, right click, little box, right click. It's not particularly hard. Besides, micro is interesting to watch and to do. Clicking 12 factories every 35 seconds isn't.
Well in BW the pathing was actually better and you could bunch and split with only a few clicks. It also had this dynamic where armies would not move in great big balls, and you could cut up armies with zerglings by running in between units.
That's nice. I'm not sure what your point is, but that's nice.
On March 17 2011 17:08 wherebugsgo wrote:Hell, let's just take out all the macro. Just forget command centers, SCVs, etc. Just make it so that we get a steady trickle of minerals and then we all have to decide what to spend it on. Makes the game fair, right? No stupid mechanics you have to do, it's all based on position and skill! The player with the best strategy wins.
While it wouldn't be Starcraft, there's actually nothing wrong with a game that works that way. Actually, that sounds like a pretty cool idea for a turn-based-strategy game.
Still, I find it interesting that neither of you actually responded to my point except to insult me. C'est le internet.
There is a difference between good things that increase skill, and bad things that increase skill. I don't see any argument for single building selection except that it's harder. I don't want to have to spend fifty APM filling out my tax forms. I want to spend it using interesting spells, doing mutli-pronged harass and counter attacks, using micro to defeat a more powerful army, etc etc etc.
You guys want to raise the skill cap? Fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But for god's sake, raise the skill cap in a way that makes the game more fun to play and to watch.
|
I'm with Ribbon.
Playing with a laptop touchpad is baller to the extreme.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
On March 17 2011 17:51 Ribbon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 17:12 sluggaslamoo wrote:On March 17 2011 16:40 Ribbon wrote:
I'm going to raise $100 for a tournament with special rules to ensure the most skilled player wins.
1. Every time you want to build a worker, you have to arm wrestle a midget,
2. Your units have to be in a heart-shaped formation when attacking, and you have to micro all the units to make it happen.
3. Workers want to be loved, and will go on strike if you don't click on them enough.
4. Building tech structures requires the player to get our of his chair and jump through a literal hoop.
5. You have to pay taxes on your income. You can get deductions by filling out the proper forms.
I'm absolutely baffled by people saying we need to remove Multi-Building Selection and such to make the game more skill-dependent. Sure, it's annoying to do, uninteresting to watch, and is basically just tedious busywork no one likes, but it's harder!
Sure, we could try to make maps where the death ball was easier for Z to deal with. Maybe if we make maps even bigger, Z can counterattack while throwing up hatches everywhere to force the P to play whack-a-mole! Maybe if bases had a very long rush distance but a very wide open natural, P would have trouble defending an expo and couldn't rush up a techy doomball. Maybe we could make Xelnaga towers that provide really useful scouting, or even make custom maps with Xel'Naga scanners or something. That'd be a novel fix to the scouting issue, eh? Making an abandoned Comsat Station from SC1 in your natural that all races could capture and use? Maybe even only Z, if you thought it was a balance issue?
Oh, wait, that requires thought, effort, energy, and playtesting.
Much better to make the players just have to do so much tedious bullshit that even pro games could be decided on who shoveled the most tedious bullshit. Your argument is just a rehash of the same old crap that keeps pissing out from some really rude players who don't know anything about BW and think they can make some argument that makes no sense and get like minded people to rally behind you. Your argument requires no thought at all and gets people no where. I appreciate your response, which will no doubt be rational and well-argued. Show nested quote +Here I have one for you.
Hey I have an idea, why don't we make Basketball 2, where players only have to dribble every 10 steps, and instead of shooting into a hoop they just have to cross a line on the other side of the field. Of course tackling is unfair to bad players who don't know how to hold a ball, so instead of making them learn how to control a ball, lets make it so you can't tackle at all. 1. You can't tackle in Basketball. 2. Dribbling isn't required because it's hard, it's required because otherwise you'd have no legal way to reclaim the ball. The rule has a point. People here are arguing for making the game harder for the sole purpose of making it harder. If you, for instance, made Corruption an AOE spell that affected an area and was way more important, that would add more skill to the game. It would also serve a purpose, and make the game more interesting in many ways. Show nested quote +The skill required in BW had a side-effect of balancing the game, the examples you mentioned do not balance the game. Neither do yours! How does having to select every single SCV I make and manually tell it to mine add anything to the game but an extra step? Show nested quote +You obviously have never played BW at a competitive level, even if you say you have, I won't believe you, because everyone who has macro at a decent level much prefers Single-Building-Selection to the imbalanced macro mechanics we have in SC2. Not even if I link my ICCUP profile? You know, when I started playing BW on ICCUP, I didn't have a mouse. I was using my laptop touchpad for a while! You know what everyone told me? Get a mouse! (I did). I wonder why the ICCUP community didn't tell me to stick to my mechanically harder touchpad. Show nested quote +More bases require more attention, therefore good macro players will be more efficient on 3 bases than a bad macro player on 3 bases. This is because he can manage his workers more efficiently, and make units more efficiently. Why do you think this is so wrong? Who said I did? I think SC2 strikes a pretty good balance, honestly. Having good macro is about having a good memory and having a polished build, not having a million billion APM. Show nested quote +Smart-casting is the reason we have such boring spells that do hardly any damage. So you have to pump a lot of spells out continuously until it looks like a total cluster fuck and no-one can see what's going on. Sounds like you have a problem with the graphics. If it makes you feel better, smart-casting means having your casters on one hotkey means they clump means LOL EMP. So I imagine we'll end up seeing less and less of that in the future. Show nested quote +And try this one for size. Splitting armies take hundreds of clicks, but I bet you think marine splitting is awesome right? Little box, right click, little box, right click, little box, right click. It's not particularly hard. Besides, micro is interesting to watch and to do. Clicking 12 factories every 35 seconds isn't. Show nested quote +Well in BW the pathing was actually better and you could bunch and split with only a few clicks. It also had this dynamic where armies would not move in great big balls, and you could cut up armies with zerglings by running in between units. That's nice. I'm not sure what your point is, but that's nice. Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 17:08 wherebugsgo wrote:Hell, let's just take out all the macro. Just forget command centers, SCVs, etc. Just make it so that we get a steady trickle of minerals and then we all have to decide what to spend it on. Makes the game fair, right? No stupid mechanics you have to do, it's all based on position and skill! The player with the best strategy wins. While it wouldn't be Starcraft, there's actually nothing wrong with a game that works that way. Actually, that sounds like a pretty cool idea for a turn-based-strategy game. Still, I find it interesting that neither of you actually responded to my point except to insult me. C'est le internet. There is a difference between good things that increase skill, and bad things that increase skill. I don't see any argument for single building selection except that it's harder. I don't want to have to spend fifty APM filling out my tax forms. I want to spend it using interesting spells, doing mutli-pronged harass and counter attacks, using micro to defeat a more powerful army, etc etc etc. You guys want to raise the skill cap? Fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But for god's sake, raise the skill cap in a way that makes the game more fun to play and to watch.
You have to understand that these ''meaningless clicks'' as you call them make the game harder, therefore it is more appericiated by people when players pump out a massive army on 3/4 bases. The harder it is to macro, the more appericiation the players reach. You will really think, wow I am watching the best of the best duke it out, they have incredible macro, decision making etc. Because macro is so easy in SC2 there is no such thing as a wow effect when you see a massive amount of units being reinforced over a couple bases.
Smartcasting is actually crucial, more important then you think.
The reason smartcasting is bad for the game is because it makes it easier, this means that you can NEVER have game-changing spells such as the 112 damage(or 120 dmg if you will) Psionic storm, the Defiler's plague/dark swarm. These spells would be ridicilously overpowerd if anyone could use them perfectly with just a few clicks. There is a reason some people were known for its insane defiler control or Jangbi with his psi storms. It was hard to do, and they could change the tide of the battle.
Smartcasting NO LONGER allows this, no spell can be so overpowered as the 112 psy storm or the dark swarm, because it would be overpowerd as anyone can use it by just having 1 control group and spamming T(Overexegeratting slightly, but you get the point).
On top of how hard it was to control casters, you also have massive unit clumping in sc2, a 112 storm would do way too much damage and considered overpowered in SC2. Which means we no longer have an option of game-changing spells which can turn the tide of a battle in the favor of those who micro properly.
|
On March 17 2011 18:22 Kipsate wrote:
On top of how hard it was to control casters, you also have massive unit clumping in sc2, a 112 storm would do way too much damage and considered overpowered in SC2. Which means we no longer have an option of game-changing spells which can turn the tide of a battle in the favor of those who micro properly. You don't think psy storm is still a game changing spell in SC2? How about EMP? Getting good EMPs off on templars and sentries can make all the difference in TvP. Similarly, good feedbacks on ghosts and well placed psy storms can make all the difference from the Protoss side. Fungal growth and neural parasite can both be game changing when used well. I don't see what the problem is here. None of the spells are OP, but they are still game changing, and require good micro to pull off (in particular feedbacking ghosts).
|
Blind elitism is so dense. Why are we saying that this game is too easy? The game is still so young and there is NO pro gamer who is playing this game like a bonjwa. This game is so far from being played perfectly I am simply laughing at the dumb posts here. Especially Terran/Zerg can be played a 100x times better. Protoss is a pretty straightforward race except for phoenix harass, which looks very strong when executed perfectly.
Do we see a zerg ever use 3 overlords to drop 24 zerglings in a base? Did we EVER see perfect creep spread? Do we see a Terran using blue flame Hellions an entire game? Do we see a protoss pressuring an entire game?
Pro gamers even leave their army stand still for 2-5 minutes. Multitasking is far from perfect.
Immvp made BIG mistakes. He lost 6 games. 2 against July where he threw away game 1, given that July played pretty sneaky. And Immvp completely botched game 2.
He lost 2 games against Alicia, and we have to admit that Immvp didn’t play a good game. Especially game 1, where he played overconfident and thought that he was the only one who would ever harass. Then he lost 2 games against Genious and I didn’t even recognise Immvp. If you play as poor as that, you can say what ever you want, this game was not lost by Immvp because it is to easy and the skill ceiling is too low.
The mechanics are easier. I agree, but please, the good players are far from perfect. FAR FROM PERFECT. The skill ceiling has not yet been touched. Idra you are so far from that ceiling, mc you are so far from that ceiling, Immvp you are so far from that ceiling, July you are so far from that ceiling.
|
People who say the harder mechanics of Brood War is better than SC2 doesn't realize the irony that Starcraft itself was a huge step up in terms of friendly user interface back in it's day. If you thought Brood War mechanics were hard, you've never played the early CnC games like Red Alert 1&2 and Tiberium Dawn/Sun, or the Myth series who have pretty horrible UI compared to Broodwar. I mean seriously, you cant even ATTACK MOVE in the early CnC games, wtf. You think your 2D movement on an isometric map in Broodwar is hardcore? Then go and play Homeworld and shit yourselves actually trying to navigate your units through 3D space.
Seriously, if people think that having harder mechanics makes a game more fun to watch and play, then maybe Blizz should make a few changes in HotS; disable control groups or even group select so that you can only select and move one unit at a time. And you need to type a command to use special abilities instead of clicking on an icon or using shortcut keys. And no there wont be any kind of vocal warning that your base, units or probes, are under attack, because all those stuff are for newbs. Instead of just minerals and gas, you'll have 8 more resources that you need to worry about such as Oil, Coal, Wood, Gold, Rock, Plutonium, etc. Make that game, and see how many people would appreciate having harder mechanics.
|
On March 17 2011 18:22 Kipsate wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 17:51 Ribbon wrote:On March 17 2011 17:12 sluggaslamoo wrote:On March 17 2011 16:40 Ribbon wrote:
I'm going to raise $100 for a tournament with special rules to ensure the most skilled player wins.
1. Every time you want to build a worker, you have to arm wrestle a midget,
2. Your units have to be in a heart-shaped formation when attacking, and you have to micro all the units to make it happen.
3. Workers want to be loved, and will go on strike if you don't click on them enough.
4. Building tech structures requires the player to get our of his chair and jump through a literal hoop.
5. You have to pay taxes on your income. You can get deductions by filling out the proper forms.
I'm absolutely baffled by people saying we need to remove Multi-Building Selection and such to make the game more skill-dependent. Sure, it's annoying to do, uninteresting to watch, and is basically just tedious busywork no one likes, but it's harder!
Sure, we could try to make maps where the death ball was easier for Z to deal with. Maybe if we make maps even bigger, Z can counterattack while throwing up hatches everywhere to force the P to play whack-a-mole! Maybe if bases had a very long rush distance but a very wide open natural, P would have trouble defending an expo and couldn't rush up a techy doomball. Maybe we could make Xelnaga towers that provide really useful scouting, or even make custom maps with Xel'Naga scanners or something. That'd be a novel fix to the scouting issue, eh? Making an abandoned Comsat Station from SC1 in your natural that all races could capture and use? Maybe even only Z, if you thought it was a balance issue?
Oh, wait, that requires thought, effort, energy, and playtesting.
Much better to make the players just have to do so much tedious bullshit that even pro games could be decided on who shoveled the most tedious bullshit. Your argument is just a rehash of the same old crap that keeps pissing out from some really rude players who don't know anything about BW and think they can make some argument that makes no sense and get like minded people to rally behind you. Your argument requires no thought at all and gets people no where. I appreciate your response, which will no doubt be rational and well-argued. Here I have one for you.
Hey I have an idea, why don't we make Basketball 2, where players only have to dribble every 10 steps, and instead of shooting into a hoop they just have to cross a line on the other side of the field. Of course tackling is unfair to bad players who don't know how to hold a ball, so instead of making them learn how to control a ball, lets make it so you can't tackle at all. 1. You can't tackle in Basketball. 2. Dribbling isn't required because it's hard, it's required because otherwise you'd have no legal way to reclaim the ball. The rule has a point. People here are arguing for making the game harder for the sole purpose of making it harder. If you, for instance, made Corruption an AOE spell that affected an area and was way more important, that would add more skill to the game. It would also serve a purpose, and make the game more interesting in many ways. The skill required in BW had a side-effect of balancing the game, the examples you mentioned do not balance the game. Neither do yours! How does having to select every single SCV I make and manually tell it to mine add anything to the game but an extra step? You obviously have never played BW at a competitive level, even if you say you have, I won't believe you, because everyone who has macro at a decent level much prefers Single-Building-Selection to the imbalanced macro mechanics we have in SC2. Not even if I link my ICCUP profile? You know, when I started playing BW on ICCUP, I didn't have a mouse. I was using my laptop touchpad for a while! You know what everyone told me? Get a mouse! (I did). I wonder why the ICCUP community didn't tell me to stick to my mechanically harder touchpad. More bases require more attention, therefore good macro players will be more efficient on 3 bases than a bad macro player on 3 bases. This is because he can manage his workers more efficiently, and make units more efficiently. Why do you think this is so wrong? Who said I did? I think SC2 strikes a pretty good balance, honestly. Having good macro is about having a good memory and having a polished build, not having a million billion APM. Smart-casting is the reason we have such boring spells that do hardly any damage. So you have to pump a lot of spells out continuously until it looks like a total cluster fuck and no-one can see what's going on. Sounds like you have a problem with the graphics. If it makes you feel better, smart-casting means having your casters on one hotkey means they clump means LOL EMP. So I imagine we'll end up seeing less and less of that in the future. And try this one for size. Splitting armies take hundreds of clicks, but I bet you think marine splitting is awesome right? Little box, right click, little box, right click, little box, right click. It's not particularly hard. Besides, micro is interesting to watch and to do. Clicking 12 factories every 35 seconds isn't. Well in BW the pathing was actually better and you could bunch and split with only a few clicks. It also had this dynamic where armies would not move in great big balls, and you could cut up armies with zerglings by running in between units. That's nice. I'm not sure what your point is, but that's nice. On March 17 2011 17:08 wherebugsgo wrote:Hell, let's just take out all the macro. Just forget command centers, SCVs, etc. Just make it so that we get a steady trickle of minerals and then we all have to decide what to spend it on. Makes the game fair, right? No stupid mechanics you have to do, it's all based on position and skill! The player with the best strategy wins. While it wouldn't be Starcraft, there's actually nothing wrong with a game that works that way. Actually, that sounds like a pretty cool idea for a turn-based-strategy game. Still, I find it interesting that neither of you actually responded to my point except to insult me. C'est le internet. There is a difference between good things that increase skill, and bad things that increase skill. I don't see any argument for single building selection except that it's harder. I don't want to have to spend fifty APM filling out my tax forms. I want to spend it using interesting spells, doing mutli-pronged harass and counter attacks, using micro to defeat a more powerful army, etc etc etc. You guys want to raise the skill cap? Fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But for god's sake, raise the skill cap in a way that makes the game more fun to play and to watch. You have to understand that these ''meaningless clicks'' as you call them make the game harder, therefore it is more appericiated by people when players pump out a massive army on 3/4 bases.
I understand that. It would also be more impressive if you macroed a massive army on 3/4 base while the booth was full of bees. It's difficult for the sake of being difficult. There's no thought, strategy, or point to any of it.
It's a waste. The "skill cap" (mm-hm) can be increased in more interesting ways. Why oh why does everyone want the most boring/aggravating possible method of doing it?
Right now, 80% of players are losing games solely because of mechanics (Plat and below). Probably more than a few diamonds as well.
The harder it is to macro, the more appericiation the players reach. You will really think, wow I am watching the best of the best duke it out, they have incredible macro, decision making etc. Because macro is so easy in SC2 there is no such thing as a wow effect when you see a massive amount of units being reinforced over a couple bases.
So would making the players wear boxing gloves. There's nothing inherently interesting about selecting multiple buildings.
Smartcasting is actually crucial, more important then you think.
The reason smartcasting is bad for the game is because it makes it easier, this means that you can NEVER have game-changing spells such as the 112 damage(or 120 dmg if you will) Psionic storm, the Defiler's plague/dark swarm. These spells would be ridicilously overpowerd if anyone could use them perfectly with just a few clicks. There is a reason some people were known for its insane defiler control or Jangbi with his psi storms. It was hard to do, and they could change the tide of the battle.
"This ability is broken. Luckily, the interface is so terrible nearly nobody can use the damn thing"
Besides, I'd say the new Fungal is pretty game-changing if it hits a bunch of marines. Remember the Idra vs MVP game where Idra killed like 40 marines with some Fungals? That was pretty awesome, so there can still be "wow" moments.
The bar has been raised, is all. What was once impressive is ho-hum, but what's going to be impressive....damn, yo.
Smartcasting NO LONGER allows this, no spell can be so overpowered as the 112 psy storm or the dark swarm, because it would be overpowerd as anyone can use it by just having 1 control group and spamming T(Overexegeratting slightly, but you get the point).
On top of how hard it was to control casters, you also have massive unit clumping in sc2, a 112 storm would do way too much damage and considered overpowered in SC2. Which means we no longer have an option of game-changing spells which can turn the tide of a battle in the favor of those who micro properly.
See my above point RE: Idra vs MVP. EMP also has some severe game-changing potential because of how much damage it does to a big clump.
What's going to be impressive in SC2 isn't what was impressive in BW. It's what was unimaginable in BW. All those APM that would've been spent clicking buildings are just waiting for a use. The game has been improving kind a bit. It's still got a long way to go. One year from now, someone as good as Idra or MVP is now will be considered a total scrub for not doing Viking transform micro or whatever absurd idea is just waiting to be discovered.
And if there isn't one in the game, we'll make one. Relax.
When the games stop getting better every season, maybe then you can start the doomsaying.
|
I think the problem is the BO3. stop doing BO3's. They're coinflips and not good tests of the better player. The BO5 has shown to be the best test. BO5's would have given us at least two better GSL finals, and not as many sets that feel downright silly.
|
On March 17 2011 18:22 Kipsate wrote:
You have to understand that these ''meaningless clicks'' as you call them make the game harder, therefore it is more appericiated by people when players pump out a massive army on 3/4 bases. The harder it is to macro, the more appericiation the players reach. You will really think, wow I am watching the best of the best duke it out, they have incredible macro, decision making etc. Because macro is so easy in SC2 there is no such thing as a wow effect when you see a massive amount of units being reinforced over a couple bases.
The point he's trying to make is that if macro becomes easier, the good players will find other ways to do impressive play. If not, they were really just good at playing an outdated system, which is still important in the game that has the outdated system, but they have to switch their focus elsewhere when the game changes.
I'd rather Wow at someone keeping their economy down at 190/200 supply and 5base, rather than them being able to spam units out of factories one by one, which is hard, but not intelligent or cool looking in any way.
The APM spent on individually building from 5 factories can be spent on manually or preemptively splitting your groups to get a better concave or be fast enough and drag injured units to the back of the line so they stop getting focus fired etc.
Also, you BW newfags should be playing Dune, now THAT GAME REQUIRED SKILLS EL OH EL etc...
Sorry, you simply can't make an argument for harder mechanics for the sake of it. If you want to make the game require more skill, make it require more skill in a way that doesn't hinder players control of the game.
|
Hmm, i cant help but remember playing SupCom (or TA), where you could queue up units without losing effective resources (because they only const if they are built), and that units would act in a more or less sensible way by themselves. Much less clicks on simple tasks, much more on the concrete goals you wanted to achieve. I think thats what a good rts should look like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
