|
On October 29 2011 11:42 ScoutingDrone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:32 lFrost wrote:On October 29 2011 11:10 ScoutingDrone wrote:
BW is the equivalent of wheelchair basketball, and SC2 is the equivalent of normal basketball.
BW mechanics that makes it "harder" are nothing but unnecessary handicaps placed on players to make it "harder".
A few examples are:
limited to 12 units per control group (unnecessary)
no rally point for workers to minerals (unnecessary)
cannot put multiple buildings in one control group (unnecessary)
As you can see, what makes BW "harder" are mostly caused by unnecessary handicaps, just like how wheelchair basketball is "harder" because you're handicapped and can't use your legs, but this doesn't make wheelchair basketball "better" than normal basketball.
If you think BW is "better" than SC2 because it has "harder mechanics", then I can make a better game than BW by tomorrow. I'll just copy everything about BW except make it so each control group is limited to only 3 units instead of 12. Does this make my game "harder" than BW?
Yes. Does this make my game "better" than BW? Hmmmmm.....
your argument does have some truth to it but sometimes some handicaps can make a game "better" if the next sc game created had automated blink micro, auto queen inject, toggable auto moneyspend mode, etc. then the game would not be as exciting to watch even though it seems like every player is microing/macroing perfectly because as a viewer you know that the game does not take much skill to play reason why bw can be better is because there are actually highly skilled players who can play at that high level - through all those handicaps and do amazing things. as a viewer if you understand how hard it is to execute the amazing things they do in games, then it does create more excitement/awe There's a difference between taking out repetitive/unnecessary parts of the game vs. taking out parts of a game that requires real skill. For example I won't be bothered if they had auto inject for queens. However making stalkers auto blink would be bad because blink micro takes real "skill" rather than "repetitive unnecessary tasks". And most of the things that makes BW "harder" like control group restrictions and no auto-mining for workers require BW players to make more "repetitive" actions rather than "skilled" actions.
While your argument has some merit to it, macro is a skill in of itself. The macro of SC2 is no doubt easier because 1) the actions required to build units is lower, 2) economy management is easier in SC2 with perfect mining efficiency and 3) timing is more important in BW
Macro in BW is still not something even close to being perfected while in SC2 it will soon not be a real indicator of the skill difference between two players.
|
There is arguably no skill ceiling in StarCraft 2. But the difference in skill between better and worse players is much smaller than in StarCraft: Brood War.
|
On October 29 2011 11:42 ScoutingDrone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:32 lFrost wrote:On October 29 2011 11:10 ScoutingDrone wrote:
BW is the equivalent of wheelchair basketball, and SC2 is the equivalent of normal basketball.
BW mechanics that makes it "harder" are nothing but unnecessary handicaps placed on players to make it "harder".
A few examples are:
limited to 12 units per control group (unnecessary)
no rally point for workers to minerals (unnecessary)
cannot put multiple buildings in one control group (unnecessary)
As you can see, what makes BW "harder" are mostly caused by unnecessary handicaps, just like how wheelchair basketball is "harder" because you're handicapped and can't use your legs, but this doesn't make wheelchair basketball "better" than normal basketball.
If you think BW is "better" than SC2 because it has "harder mechanics", then I can make a better game than BW by tomorrow. I'll just copy everything about BW except make it so each control group is limited to only 3 units instead of 12. Does this make my game "harder" than BW?
Yes. Does this make my game "better" than BW? Hmmmmm.....
your argument does have some truth to it but sometimes some handicaps can make a game "better" if the next sc game created had automated blink micro, auto queen inject, toggable auto moneyspend mode, etc. then the game would not be as exciting to watch even though it seems like every player is microing/macroing perfectly because as a viewer you know that the game does not take much skill to play reason why bw can be better is because there are actually highly skilled players who can play at that high level - through all those handicaps and do amazing things. as a viewer if you understand how hard it is to execute the amazing things they do in games, then it does create more excitement/awe There's a difference between taking out repetitive/unnecessary parts of the game vs. taking out parts of a game that requires real skill. For example I won't be bothered if they had auto inject for queens. However making stalkers auto blink would be bad because blink micro takes real "skill" rather than "repetitive unnecessary tasks". And most of the things that makes BW "harder" like control group restrictions and no auto-mining for workers require BW players to make more "repetitive" actions rather than "skilled" actions.
Mmmm, I think auto-inject is a bit much. Testing your opponents multi-tasking is important. SC1 and SC2 alike.
|
On October 29 2011 11:43 Zanno wrote:
the physical act of macroing is easier, that cannot be denied
but the mental aspect of it is no different
boxer had notoriously bad macro in bw and in sc2 this has remained unchanged
if macroing was really as easy as you make it out to be, then why does he still have this problem? relative to korean sc2 progamers, boxer macro is as bad as it was relative to bw progamers
where are there still players who have good macro and some that have bad macro, when apparently all the skill in macroing has been removed?
there's so much more to macro than the mechanical element of it, i don't even know where to begin
For one hes not as good as he used to be which means his decline in ability to macro steadily dropped in BW and when SC2 was released he jumped up to about the same level as he used to be in his prime.
That peoples macro at the moment slips up sometimes (Nestea at Blizzcon for instance) I think has more to do with that the strategys have not been refined enough yet. In 5 years I can guarantee you that anyone (even Boxer with one hand pretty much) will be able to macro as well as Nestea does at the moment and Nestea himself will just be a tiny bit better at keeping his cash low since his money is already pretty low.
|
There's a difference between taking out repetitive/unnecessary parts of the game vs. taking out parts of a game that requires real skill.
For example I won't be bothered if they had auto inject for queens. However making stalkers auto blink would be bad because blink micro takes real "skill" rather than "repetitive unnecessary tasks". And most of the things that makes BW "harder" like control group restrictions and no auto-mining for workers require BW players to make more "repetitive" actions rather than "skilled" actions.
the real difference is that there's no choice involved in a lot of BW macro actions, and barely any with Queen injects--something is indisputably good, in an ideal world players would always do it, and the only question is whether they can successfully do it. For example, having workers be idle in BW is basically always bad. Using all your workers therefore isn't really a choice, its just something everyone should try to do all the time. Queen injects are basically like this--yes, in the early game there are some decisions about when to spawn tumors, and occasionally you'll use inject energy on a transfuse for defense, but 95% of the time injecting isn't a choice, its just something that should be done all the time. Its a way to differentiate "skill" of a certain kind, but it certainly isn't interesting.
Whereas blink obviously carries almost unlimited choice. It can be used offensively, defensively, for harassment. When/where you use it makes a huge difference--blinking out of harm's way could save that Stalker, but maybe you need its dps to bring down a key unit, so there's a tension, an actual choice to make.
Starcraft at its best is IMO, about making millions of choices big and small and at an incredibly fast pace. Do you build a Stalker or a Sentry? Do you go fast lair or stay on hatch tech for a while? Do you move that harass unit right towards the mineral line, or do you try to loop around from another angle? Do you press your advantage or retreat? Do you move that stimmed marine to the right, or to the left? Each choice has consequences, and the player who makes the most choices and makes them right should win.
I'm not saying that mechanics shouldn't play a part--they clearly should play a big part. I'd just prefer mechanics to be about making actual decisions at a nearly superhumanly fast pace, rather than just performing repitive/binary actions that have a clearly correct course of action in all cases.
|
On October 29 2011 11:49 Slakter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:42 ScoutingDrone wrote:On October 29 2011 11:32 lFrost wrote:On October 29 2011 11:10 ScoutingDrone wrote:
BW is the equivalent of wheelchair basketball, and SC2 is the equivalent of normal basketball.
BW mechanics that makes it "harder" are nothing but unnecessary handicaps placed on players to make it "harder".
A few examples are:
limited to 12 units per control group (unnecessary)
no rally point for workers to minerals (unnecessary)
cannot put multiple buildings in one control group (unnecessary)
As you can see, what makes BW "harder" are mostly caused by unnecessary handicaps, just like how wheelchair basketball is "harder" because you're handicapped and can't use your legs, but this doesn't make wheelchair basketball "better" than normal basketball.
If you think BW is "better" than SC2 because it has "harder mechanics", then I can make a better game than BW by tomorrow. I'll just copy everything about BW except make it so each control group is limited to only 3 units instead of 12. Does this make my game "harder" than BW?
Yes. Does this make my game "better" than BW? Hmmmmm.....
your argument does have some truth to it but sometimes some handicaps can make a game "better" if the next sc game created had automated blink micro, auto queen inject, toggable auto moneyspend mode, etc. then the game would not be as exciting to watch even though it seems like every player is microing/macroing perfectly because as a viewer you know that the game does not take much skill to play reason why bw can be better is because there are actually highly skilled players who can play at that high level - through all those handicaps and do amazing things. as a viewer if you understand how hard it is to execute the amazing things they do in games, then it does create more excitement/awe There's a difference between taking out repetitive/unnecessary parts of the game vs. taking out parts of a game that requires real skill. For example I won't be bothered if they had auto inject for queens. However making stalkers auto blink would be bad because blink micro takes real "skill" rather than "repetitive unnecessary tasks". And most of the things that makes BW "harder" like control group restrictions and no auto-mining for workers require BW players to make more "repetitive" actions rather than "skilled" actions. Your opinion on what is unnecessary and repetative is not the same as mine. Injecting larva is just as repetative as sending your workers to mine. And unit selection is the thing that SC2 really needs at the moment, or something like it. Without it deathball armies just 1a over eachother and thats that. Ofcourse im exaggerating but the point remains. In BW you have small armies clash all over the map while in SC2 you have one big fat clump of units fighting another clump of units. One thing would love for Blizz to do would be to make chrono boost and mules a cooldown spell instead of an energy spell. That way you HAVE to use that mule or else you lose precious time mining. That way we get a bit more of a macro requirment in the game without needing to nerf the engine. And yes, its repetative but thats the point.
There are many things wrong with what you said.
1) Auto-inject would be bad because the player wont have the choice to save energy for creep tumor/transfusion.
2) Even though you can put all your army in 1 control group in SC2, you can still choose to keep them in separate control groups BW-style in SC2. More options does not hurt.
3) No energy on mules or chrono is the worst idea ever. You will take away the strategic decision for players to either use mule for economic lead, or save energy for scan. Same thing with chrono, it would be stupid to force the protoss players to use the chrono boosts right away, it would take away many strategic timings protoss can do by saving chrono and then spending all of them quickly on upgrades for example.
|
On October 29 2011 11:55 awesomoecalypse wrote:Show nested quote +There's a difference between taking out repetitive/unnecessary parts of the game vs. taking out parts of a game that requires real skill.
For example I won't be bothered if they had auto inject for queens. However making stalkers auto blink would be bad because blink micro takes real "skill" rather than "repetitive unnecessary tasks". And most of the things that makes BW "harder" like control group restrictions and no auto-mining for workers require BW players to make more "repetitive" actions rather than "skilled" actions. the real difference is that there's no choice involved in a lot of BW macro actions, and barely any with Queen injects--something is indisputably good, in an ideal world players would always do it, and the only question is whether they can successfully do it. For example, having workers be idle in BW is basically always bad. Using all your workers therefore isn't really a choice, its just something everyone should try to do all the time. Queen injects are basically like this--yes, in the early game there are some decisions about when to spawn tumors, and occasionally you'll use inject energy on a transfuse for defense, but 95% of the time injecting isn't a choice, its just something that should be done all the time. Its a way to differentiate "skill" of a certain kind, but it certainly isn't interesting. Whereas blink obviously carries almost unlimited choice. It can be used offensively, defensively, for harassment. When/where you use it makes a huge difference--blinking out of harm's way could save that Stalker, but maybe you need its dps to bring down a key unit, so there's a tension, an actual choice to make. Starcraft at its best is IMO, about making millions of choices big and small and at an incredibly fast pace. Do you build a Stalker or a Sentry? Do you go fast lair or stay on hatch tech for a while? Do you move that harass unit right towards the mineral line, or do you try to loop around from another angle? Do you press your advantage or retreat? Do you move that stimmed marine to the right, or to the left? Each choice has consequences, and the player who makes the most choices and makes them right should win. I'm not saying that mechanics shouldn't play a part--they clearly should play a big part. I'd just prefer mechanics to be about making actual decisions at a nearly superhumanly fast pace, rather than just performing repitive/binary actions that have a clearly correct course of action in all cases.
Why not have a toggle for creating units? Say, you can toggle on SCV creation and have your Command Center constantly create SCVs until you decide to turn it off. Then it's just a decision and largely eliminates the mechanical aspect of it. Would that be a positive change?
|
On October 29 2011 10:14 insanet wrote:
No, no ,no . This is bad news.
let me explain you, if BW players switch they are gonna increase the skill ceiling sooo much is gonna be hell for everybody else.
Everybody will need to play 24/7 like BW players do and they are not used it to it and they are gonna become unhappy and fall back.
The amount of time foreigners put in the game are a joke compared with BW house factories,
BW players are practice machines, you dont understand dont you?. ask BW gods what were doing christmas night? practicing. New year eve? practicing. Holidays? practicing, they get bored if they dont practice.
is gonna be hell for everybody else to keep up. so i encourage you to be against this! BW needs to live for SC2 to be enjoyable for the current players.
you cant really seriously be saying that better games would be bad for sc2
|
On October 29 2011 11:55 awesomoecalypse wrote:Show nested quote +There's a difference between taking out repetitive/unnecessary parts of the game vs. taking out parts of a game that requires real skill.
For example I won't be bothered if they had auto inject for queens. However making stalkers auto blink would be bad because blink micro takes real "skill" rather than "repetitive unnecessary tasks". And most of the things that makes BW "harder" like control group restrictions and no auto-mining for workers require BW players to make more "repetitive" actions rather than "skilled" actions. the real difference is that there's no choice involved in a lot of BW macro actions, and barely any with Queen injects--something is indisputably good, in an ideal world players would always do it, and the only question is whether they can successfully do it. For example, having workers be idle in BW is basically always bad. Using all your workers therefore isn't really a choice, its just something everyone should try to do all the time. Queen injects are basically like this--yes, in the early game there are some decisions about when to spawn tumors, and occasionally you'll use inject energy on a transfuse for defense, but 95% of the time injecting isn't a choice, its just something that should be done all the time. Its a way to differentiate "skill" of a certain kind, but it certainly isn't interesting. Whereas blink obviously carries almost unlimited choice. It can be used offensively, defensively, for harassment. When/where you use it makes a huge difference--blinking out of harm's way could save that Stalker, but maybe you need its dps to bring down a key unit, so there's a tension, an actual choice to make. Starcraft at its best is IMO, about making millions of choices big and small and at an incredibly fast pace. Do you build a Stalker or a Sentry? Do you go fast lair or stay on hatch tech for a while? Do you move that harass unit right towards the mineral line, or do you try to loop around from another angle? Do you press your advantage or retreat? Do you move that stimmed marine to the right, or to the left? Each choice has consequences, and the player who makes the most choices and makes them right should win. I'm not saying that mechanics shouldn't play a part--they clearly should play a big part. I'd just prefer mechanics to be about making actual decisions at a nearly superhumanly fast pace, rather than just performing repitive/binary actions that have a clearly correct course of action in all cases.
There is though. I think this is something alot of people miss.
The BW style of mechanics actually ADDS to the strategy of the game. It adds strategy in the RT sense of RTS though. It forces you to make a strategic choice about how your going to spend your APM. Do you go back and macro hard, or do you micro your shuttle/reaver in the big battle, or do you focus most on the storm drop your trying to execute at his third. Because the BW interface is more cumbersome it makes these decision quite a bit more difficult since each of these choices takes more actions and effort to perform.
Basically where I disagree strongly with you is on the "clearly defined choice of actions" point. What you want to spend your actions on is often not a clear choice and frequently becomes a crucial strategic decision.
|
On October 29 2011 12:02 Rostam wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:55 awesomoecalypse wrote:There's a difference between taking out repetitive/unnecessary parts of the game vs. taking out parts of a game that requires real skill.
For example I won't be bothered if they had auto inject for queens. However making stalkers auto blink would be bad because blink micro takes real "skill" rather than "repetitive unnecessary tasks". And most of the things that makes BW "harder" like control group restrictions and no auto-mining for workers require BW players to make more "repetitive" actions rather than "skilled" actions. the real difference is that there's no choice involved in a lot of BW macro actions, and barely any with Queen injects--something is indisputably good, in an ideal world players would always do it, and the only question is whether they can successfully do it. For example, having workers be idle in BW is basically always bad. Using all your workers therefore isn't really a choice, its just something everyone should try to do all the time. Queen injects are basically like this--yes, in the early game there are some decisions about when to spawn tumors, and occasionally you'll use inject energy on a transfuse for defense, but 95% of the time injecting isn't a choice, its just something that should be done all the time. Its a way to differentiate "skill" of a certain kind, but it certainly isn't interesting. Whereas blink obviously carries almost unlimited choice. It can be used offensively, defensively, for harassment. When/where you use it makes a huge difference--blinking out of harm's way could save that Stalker, but maybe you need its dps to bring down a key unit, so there's a tension, an actual choice to make. Starcraft at its best is IMO, about making millions of choices big and small and at an incredibly fast pace. Do you build a Stalker or a Sentry? Do you go fast lair or stay on hatch tech for a while? Do you move that harass unit right towards the mineral line, or do you try to loop around from another angle? Do you press your advantage or retreat? Do you move that stimmed marine to the right, or to the left? Each choice has consequences, and the player who makes the most choices and makes them right should win. I'm not saying that mechanics shouldn't play a part--they clearly should play a big part. I'd just prefer mechanics to be about making actual decisions at a nearly superhumanly fast pace, rather than just performing repitive/binary actions that have a clearly correct course of action in all cases. Why not have a toggle for creating units? Say, you can toggle on SCV creation and have your Command Center constantly create SCVs until you decide to turn it off. Then it's just a decision and largely eliminates the mechanical aspect of it. Would that be a positive change?
No and here's the reason why:
Doing that will mean the game spends the money for you. This means even when you're not doing anything in-game your minerals could be constantly going down. This would be bad because lets say a pro is very precise with their build order timings, and want to create a CC right at 400 minerals. Well if the game auto-create SCVs, then right when you reach 400 minerals and plant down CC, all of the sudden your minerals drop to 350 and you can't build it anymore.
So that would be bad for the game. However there's no excuse for unnecessary handicaps like control group restrictions or no auto-mining for workers in BW.
|
On October 29 2011 12:06 ScoutingDrone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 12:02 Rostam wrote:On October 29 2011 11:55 awesomoecalypse wrote:There's a difference between taking out repetitive/unnecessary parts of the game vs. taking out parts of a game that requires real skill.
For example I won't be bothered if they had auto inject for queens. However making stalkers auto blink would be bad because blink micro takes real "skill" rather than "repetitive unnecessary tasks". And most of the things that makes BW "harder" like control group restrictions and no auto-mining for workers require BW players to make more "repetitive" actions rather than "skilled" actions. the real difference is that there's no choice involved in a lot of BW macro actions, and barely any with Queen injects--something is indisputably good, in an ideal world players would always do it, and the only question is whether they can successfully do it. For example, having workers be idle in BW is basically always bad. Using all your workers therefore isn't really a choice, its just something everyone should try to do all the time. Queen injects are basically like this--yes, in the early game there are some decisions about when to spawn tumors, and occasionally you'll use inject energy on a transfuse for defense, but 95% of the time injecting isn't a choice, its just something that should be done all the time. Its a way to differentiate "skill" of a certain kind, but it certainly isn't interesting. Whereas blink obviously carries almost unlimited choice. It can be used offensively, defensively, for harassment. When/where you use it makes a huge difference--blinking out of harm's way could save that Stalker, but maybe you need its dps to bring down a key unit, so there's a tension, an actual choice to make. Starcraft at its best is IMO, about making millions of choices big and small and at an incredibly fast pace. Do you build a Stalker or a Sentry? Do you go fast lair or stay on hatch tech for a while? Do you move that harass unit right towards the mineral line, or do you try to loop around from another angle? Do you press your advantage or retreat? Do you move that stimmed marine to the right, or to the left? Each choice has consequences, and the player who makes the most choices and makes them right should win. I'm not saying that mechanics shouldn't play a part--they clearly should play a big part. I'd just prefer mechanics to be about making actual decisions at a nearly superhumanly fast pace, rather than just performing repitive/binary actions that have a clearly correct course of action in all cases. Why not have a toggle for creating units? Say, you can toggle on SCV creation and have your Command Center constantly create SCVs until you decide to turn it off. Then it's just a decision and largely eliminates the mechanical aspect of it. Would that be a positive change? No and here's the reason why: Doing that will mean the game spends the money for you. This means even when you're not doing anything in-game your minerals could be constantly going down. This would be bad because lets say a pro is very precise with their build order timings, and want to create a CC right at 400 minerals. Well if the game auto-create SCVs, then right when you reach 400 minerals and plant down CC, all of the sudden your minerals drop to 350 and you can't build it anymore. So that would be bad for the game. However there's no excuse for unnecessary handicaps like control group restrictions or no auto-mining for workers in BW.
You can turn it off if you want to save money. What's the problem? It's not like you're being obligated to constantly produce SCVs.
|
SC2 and BW both have a functionally infinite skill ceiling, so I'm not worried about that, especially seeing how far the SC2 average game quality has progressed since release. It's not as spectator friendly yet, but HotS looks to add more multitasking, positional play and "wow factor," and maybe even bring it close to the gold standard set by BW.
Back when I played WC3, I gradually realized BW was a better game. I couldn't play it though; the control system was outdated. Basically, due to my slow realization of BW's superiority as a competitive game, I couldn't get heavily involved in it. I think the main advantages to SC2 as an e-sport over BW are better graphics (important in this day and age), a more approachable control scheme and release timing.
Looking back, global PC gaming culture was ready to accept the next huge, well-designed, accesible strategy game as the standard in e-sports. SC2 and LoL came at a perfect time, with very few barriers to entry (as opposed to HoN or BW).
Since reviving BW is simply not feasible, I'm glad to see the best mindsets, work ethics and talents in strategy game history consider entering the ring with the early adopters. I think if they do begin playing SC2 seriously, they will begin destroying top players in short order.
Kind of like Grubby is starting to do. His adaptation to SC2 took a long time and he had me worried at first, but his play against many top Europeans on the way to his + Show Spoiler + place finish in GSS 3 dispelled any lingering doubts about his ability to compete in SC2.
|
On October 29 2011 11:55 ScoutingDrone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:49 Slakter wrote:On October 29 2011 11:42 ScoutingDrone wrote:On October 29 2011 11:32 lFrost wrote:On October 29 2011 11:10 ScoutingDrone wrote:
BW is the equivalent of wheelchair basketball, and SC2 is the equivalent of normal basketball.
BW mechanics that makes it "harder" are nothing but unnecessary handicaps placed on players to make it "harder".
A few examples are:
limited to 12 units per control group (unnecessary)
no rally point for workers to minerals (unnecessary)
cannot put multiple buildings in one control group (unnecessary)
As you can see, what makes BW "harder" are mostly caused by unnecessary handicaps, just like how wheelchair basketball is "harder" because you're handicapped and can't use your legs, but this doesn't make wheelchair basketball "better" than normal basketball.
If you think BW is "better" than SC2 because it has "harder mechanics", then I can make a better game than BW by tomorrow. I'll just copy everything about BW except make it so each control group is limited to only 3 units instead of 12. Does this make my game "harder" than BW?
Yes. Does this make my game "better" than BW? Hmmmmm.....
your argument does have some truth to it but sometimes some handicaps can make a game "better" if the next sc game created had automated blink micro, auto queen inject, toggable auto moneyspend mode, etc. then the game would not be as exciting to watch even though it seems like every player is microing/macroing perfectly because as a viewer you know that the game does not take much skill to play reason why bw can be better is because there are actually highly skilled players who can play at that high level - through all those handicaps and do amazing things. as a viewer if you understand how hard it is to execute the amazing things they do in games, then it does create more excitement/awe There's a difference between taking out repetitive/unnecessary parts of the game vs. taking out parts of a game that requires real skill. For example I won't be bothered if they had auto inject for queens. However making stalkers auto blink would be bad because blink micro takes real "skill" rather than "repetitive unnecessary tasks". And most of the things that makes BW "harder" like control group restrictions and no auto-mining for workers require BW players to make more "repetitive" actions rather than "skilled" actions. Your opinion on what is unnecessary and repetative is not the same as mine. Injecting larva is just as repetative as sending your workers to mine. And unit selection is the thing that SC2 really needs at the moment, or something like it. Without it deathball armies just 1a over eachother and thats that. Ofcourse im exaggerating but the point remains. In BW you have small armies clash all over the map while in SC2 you have one big fat clump of units fighting another clump of units. One thing would love for Blizz to do would be to make chrono boost and mules a cooldown spell instead of an energy spell. That way you HAVE to use that mule or else you lose precious time mining. That way we get a bit more of a macro requirment in the game without needing to nerf the engine. And yes, its repetative but thats the point. There are many things wrong with what you said. 1) Auto-inject would be bad because the player wont have the choice to save energy for creep tumor/transfusion. 2) Even though you can put all your army in 1 control group in SC2, you can still choose to keep them in separate control groups BW-style in SC2. More options does not hurt. 3) No energy on mules or chrono is the worst idea ever. You will take away the strategic decision for players to either use mule for economic lead, or save energy for scan. Same thing with chrono, it would be stupid to force the protoss players to use the chrono boosts right away, it would take away many strategic timings protoss can do by saving chrono and then spending all of them quickly on upgrades for example.
I never said that autoinject is a good idea, I said by your logic injecting is repetative.
But if you do that you will pretty much just die to your opponents ball. (there are exceptions of course but the underlying rule is that bigger balls always win, line in real life) The reason that armies clash all over the map in BW is probably not because its the optimal way of doing it but because that is the ONLY way of doing it. If I could have all my units in BW in a tight ball and just roll I would do it in a heartbeat since its a lot more effective. You are forced to do it because of the pathing and the selection limit, and Id rather be forced to work my ass off than have the choice to work my ass off and die or lazily push my units and win. At least from a spectators perspective.
See, here is the difference between us. You want the games strategy to restrict the macro requirment while I want the macro requirment to restrict the strategies. If Chrono was on a cooldown you would need to figure out different timings and you would have to make quick decisions on what you want to chrono, not like now when you can just save it for later.
|
On October 29 2011 12:07 Rostam wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 12:06 ScoutingDrone wrote:On October 29 2011 12:02 Rostam wrote:On October 29 2011 11:55 awesomoecalypse wrote:There's a difference between taking out repetitive/unnecessary parts of the game vs. taking out parts of a game that requires real skill.
For example I won't be bothered if they had auto inject for queens. However making stalkers auto blink would be bad because blink micro takes real "skill" rather than "repetitive unnecessary tasks". And most of the things that makes BW "harder" like control group restrictions and no auto-mining for workers require BW players to make more "repetitive" actions rather than "skilled" actions. the real difference is that there's no choice involved in a lot of BW macro actions, and barely any with Queen injects--something is indisputably good, in an ideal world players would always do it, and the only question is whether they can successfully do it. For example, having workers be idle in BW is basically always bad. Using all your workers therefore isn't really a choice, its just something everyone should try to do all the time. Queen injects are basically like this--yes, in the early game there are some decisions about when to spawn tumors, and occasionally you'll use inject energy on a transfuse for defense, but 95% of the time injecting isn't a choice, its just something that should be done all the time. Its a way to differentiate "skill" of a certain kind, but it certainly isn't interesting. Whereas blink obviously carries almost unlimited choice. It can be used offensively, defensively, for harassment. When/where you use it makes a huge difference--blinking out of harm's way could save that Stalker, but maybe you need its dps to bring down a key unit, so there's a tension, an actual choice to make. Starcraft at its best is IMO, about making millions of choices big and small and at an incredibly fast pace. Do you build a Stalker or a Sentry? Do you go fast lair or stay on hatch tech for a while? Do you move that harass unit right towards the mineral line, or do you try to loop around from another angle? Do you press your advantage or retreat? Do you move that stimmed marine to the right, or to the left? Each choice has consequences, and the player who makes the most choices and makes them right should win. I'm not saying that mechanics shouldn't play a part--they clearly should play a big part. I'd just prefer mechanics to be about making actual decisions at a nearly superhumanly fast pace, rather than just performing repitive/binary actions that have a clearly correct course of action in all cases. Why not have a toggle for creating units? Say, you can toggle on SCV creation and have your Command Center constantly create SCVs until you decide to turn it off. Then it's just a decision and largely eliminates the mechanical aspect of it. Would that be a positive change? No and here's the reason why: Doing that will mean the game spends the money for you. This means even when you're not doing anything in-game your minerals could be constantly going down. This would be bad because lets say a pro is very precise with their build order timings, and want to create a CC right at 400 minerals. Well if the game auto-create SCVs, then right when you reach 400 minerals and plant down CC, all of the sudden your minerals drop to 350 and you can't build it anymore. So that would be bad for the game. However there's no excuse for unnecessary handicaps like control group restrictions or no auto-mining for workers in BW. You can turn it off if you want to save money. What's the problem? It's not like you're being obligated to constantly produce SCVs.
If you have a choice to turn on/off auto SCV creation, I have no problem with Blizzard adding that in the game.
Although its just that not a single player above platinum would use this feature because it will hinder their performance. Adding auto-mining for SCV never hinders performance.
|
On October 29 2011 12:06 ScoutingDrone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 12:02 Rostam wrote:On October 29 2011 11:55 awesomoecalypse wrote:There's a difference between taking out repetitive/unnecessary parts of the game vs. taking out parts of a game that requires real skill.
For example I won't be bothered if they had auto inject for queens. However making stalkers auto blink would be bad because blink micro takes real "skill" rather than "repetitive unnecessary tasks". And most of the things that makes BW "harder" like control group restrictions and no auto-mining for workers require BW players to make more "repetitive" actions rather than "skilled" actions. the real difference is that there's no choice involved in a lot of BW macro actions, and barely any with Queen injects--something is indisputably good, in an ideal world players would always do it, and the only question is whether they can successfully do it. For example, having workers be idle in BW is basically always bad. Using all your workers therefore isn't really a choice, its just something everyone should try to do all the time. Queen injects are basically like this--yes, in the early game there are some decisions about when to spawn tumors, and occasionally you'll use inject energy on a transfuse for defense, but 95% of the time injecting isn't a choice, its just something that should be done all the time. Its a way to differentiate "skill" of a certain kind, but it certainly isn't interesting. Whereas blink obviously carries almost unlimited choice. It can be used offensively, defensively, for harassment. When/where you use it makes a huge difference--blinking out of harm's way could save that Stalker, but maybe you need its dps to bring down a key unit, so there's a tension, an actual choice to make. Starcraft at its best is IMO, about making millions of choices big and small and at an incredibly fast pace. Do you build a Stalker or a Sentry? Do you go fast lair or stay on hatch tech for a while? Do you move that harass unit right towards the mineral line, or do you try to loop around from another angle? Do you press your advantage or retreat? Do you move that stimmed marine to the right, or to the left? Each choice has consequences, and the player who makes the most choices and makes them right should win. I'm not saying that mechanics shouldn't play a part--they clearly should play a big part. I'd just prefer mechanics to be about making actual decisions at a nearly superhumanly fast pace, rather than just performing repitive/binary actions that have a clearly correct course of action in all cases. Why not have a toggle for creating units? Say, you can toggle on SCV creation and have your Command Center constantly create SCVs until you decide to turn it off. Then it's just a decision and largely eliminates the mechanical aspect of it. Would that be a positive change? No and here's the reason why: Doing that will mean the game spends the money for you. This means even when you're not doing anything in-game your minerals could be constantly going down. This would be bad because lets say a pro is very precise with their build order timings, and want to create a CC right at 400 minerals. Well if the game auto-create SCVs, then right when you reach 400 minerals and plant down CC, all of the sudden your minerals drop to 350 and you can't build it anymore. So that would be bad for the game. However there's no excuse for unnecessary handicaps like control group restrictions or no auto-mining for workers in BW.
Lol, carriers can autoproduce interceptors.
|
Mixed emotions for me..
I want Sc2 to grow however I don't want a complete switch. I think both games can co exist
|
On October 29 2011 12:09 ScoutingDrone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 12:07 Rostam wrote:On October 29 2011 12:06 ScoutingDrone wrote:On October 29 2011 12:02 Rostam wrote:On October 29 2011 11:55 awesomoecalypse wrote:There's a difference between taking out repetitive/unnecessary parts of the game vs. taking out parts of a game that requires real skill.
For example I won't be bothered if they had auto inject for queens. However making stalkers auto blink would be bad because blink micro takes real "skill" rather than "repetitive unnecessary tasks". And most of the things that makes BW "harder" like control group restrictions and no auto-mining for workers require BW players to make more "repetitive" actions rather than "skilled" actions. the real difference is that there's no choice involved in a lot of BW macro actions, and barely any with Queen injects--something is indisputably good, in an ideal world players would always do it, and the only question is whether they can successfully do it. For example, having workers be idle in BW is basically always bad. Using all your workers therefore isn't really a choice, its just something everyone should try to do all the time. Queen injects are basically like this--yes, in the early game there are some decisions about when to spawn tumors, and occasionally you'll use inject energy on a transfuse for defense, but 95% of the time injecting isn't a choice, its just something that should be done all the time. Its a way to differentiate "skill" of a certain kind, but it certainly isn't interesting. Whereas blink obviously carries almost unlimited choice. It can be used offensively, defensively, for harassment. When/where you use it makes a huge difference--blinking out of harm's way could save that Stalker, but maybe you need its dps to bring down a key unit, so there's a tension, an actual choice to make. Starcraft at its best is IMO, about making millions of choices big and small and at an incredibly fast pace. Do you build a Stalker or a Sentry? Do you go fast lair or stay on hatch tech for a while? Do you move that harass unit right towards the mineral line, or do you try to loop around from another angle? Do you press your advantage or retreat? Do you move that stimmed marine to the right, or to the left? Each choice has consequences, and the player who makes the most choices and makes them right should win. I'm not saying that mechanics shouldn't play a part--they clearly should play a big part. I'd just prefer mechanics to be about making actual decisions at a nearly superhumanly fast pace, rather than just performing repitive/binary actions that have a clearly correct course of action in all cases. Why not have a toggle for creating units? Say, you can toggle on SCV creation and have your Command Center constantly create SCVs until you decide to turn it off. Then it's just a decision and largely eliminates the mechanical aspect of it. Would that be a positive change? No and here's the reason why: Doing that will mean the game spends the money for you. This means even when you're not doing anything in-game your minerals could be constantly going down. This would be bad because lets say a pro is very precise with their build order timings, and want to create a CC right at 400 minerals. Well if the game auto-create SCVs, then right when you reach 400 minerals and plant down CC, all of the sudden your minerals drop to 350 and you can't build it anymore. So that would be bad for the game. However there's no excuse for unnecessary handicaps like control group restrictions or no auto-mining for workers in BW. You can turn it off if you want to save money. What's the problem? It's not like you're being obligated to constantly produce SCVs. If you have a choice to turn on/off auto SCV creation, I have no problem with Blizzard adding that in the game. Although its just that not a single player above platinum would use this feature because it will hinder their performance. Adding auto-mining for SCV never hinders performance.
I'm not saying specifically for Command Centers, I'm saying every building should have a toggle like this. So, if you want your barracks to constantly produce marines in the late game while you're microing your army you can toggle it on and not have to worry about it at all. Considering how many players even at the top level struggle to keep their money low late in the game, I think this would be a useful feature.
|
On October 29 2011 12:09 ScoutingDrone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 12:07 Rostam wrote:On October 29 2011 12:06 ScoutingDrone wrote:On October 29 2011 12:02 Rostam wrote:On October 29 2011 11:55 awesomoecalypse wrote:There's a difference between taking out repetitive/unnecessary parts of the game vs. taking out parts of a game that requires real skill.
For example I won't be bothered if they had auto inject for queens. However making stalkers auto blink would be bad because blink micro takes real "skill" rather than "repetitive unnecessary tasks". And most of the things that makes BW "harder" like control group restrictions and no auto-mining for workers require BW players to make more "repetitive" actions rather than "skilled" actions. the real difference is that there's no choice involved in a lot of BW macro actions, and barely any with Queen injects--something is indisputably good, in an ideal world players would always do it, and the only question is whether they can successfully do it. For example, having workers be idle in BW is basically always bad. Using all your workers therefore isn't really a choice, its just something everyone should try to do all the time. Queen injects are basically like this--yes, in the early game there are some decisions about when to spawn tumors, and occasionally you'll use inject energy on a transfuse for defense, but 95% of the time injecting isn't a choice, its just something that should be done all the time. Its a way to differentiate "skill" of a certain kind, but it certainly isn't interesting. Whereas blink obviously carries almost unlimited choice. It can be used offensively, defensively, for harassment. When/where you use it makes a huge difference--blinking out of harm's way could save that Stalker, but maybe you need its dps to bring down a key unit, so there's a tension, an actual choice to make. Starcraft at its best is IMO, about making millions of choices big and small and at an incredibly fast pace. Do you build a Stalker or a Sentry? Do you go fast lair or stay on hatch tech for a while? Do you move that harass unit right towards the mineral line, or do you try to loop around from another angle? Do you press your advantage or retreat? Do you move that stimmed marine to the right, or to the left? Each choice has consequences, and the player who makes the most choices and makes them right should win. I'm not saying that mechanics shouldn't play a part--they clearly should play a big part. I'd just prefer mechanics to be about making actual decisions at a nearly superhumanly fast pace, rather than just performing repitive/binary actions that have a clearly correct course of action in all cases. Why not have a toggle for creating units? Say, you can toggle on SCV creation and have your Command Center constantly create SCVs until you decide to turn it off. Then it's just a decision and largely eliminates the mechanical aspect of it. Would that be a positive change? No and here's the reason why: Doing that will mean the game spends the money for you. This means even when you're not doing anything in-game your minerals could be constantly going down. This would be bad because lets say a pro is very precise with their build order timings, and want to create a CC right at 400 minerals. Well if the game auto-create SCVs, then right when you reach 400 minerals and plant down CC, all of the sudden your minerals drop to 350 and you can't build it anymore. So that would be bad for the game. However there's no excuse for unnecessary handicaps like control group restrictions or no auto-mining for workers in BW. You can turn it off if you want to save money. What's the problem? It's not like you're being obligated to constantly produce SCVs. If you have a choice to turn on/off auto SCV creation, I have no problem with Blizzard adding that in the game. Although its just that not a single player above platinum would use this feature because it will hinder their performance. Adding auto-mining for SCV never hinders performance.
sounds like u guys want 2 make SC2 even more easier. let the Computer play for you guys. so u can surf around 
|
Why not have a toggle for creating units? Say, you can toggle on SCV creation and have your Command Center constantly create SCVs until you decide to turn it off. Then it's just a decision and largely eliminates the mechanical aspect of it. Would that be a positive change?
I don't have any interest in "eliminating the mechanical aspect" I have an interest in eliminating aspects of the game built around always performing one correct, repetitive, binary action.
Building workers is not like that at all. Knowing when to build drones and when not to is hugely important to SC2 Zerg--that decision making is probably the single biggest skill differentiator in the entire Zerg race. To a lesser extent for P and T, there are a ton of builds which rely on cutting worker production for a time in order to maximize your economy at one specific moment to take advantage of a timing. And deciding when to take gas, and with how many workers to do so, is hugely important. Those are actual decisions. Yes, most of the time P and T want to be making workers, but there are many situations where they don't, and it is much, much more extreme for Z.
That's all I'm looking for, decisions which don't have a binary, repetitive, right/wrong answer 100% of the time. Making it mechanically easier to make decisions isn't particularly appealing to me, actually. Thats why, for example, I'd have a serious problem with getting rid of automining (because there's no decision at all in deciding whether to use the workers you build--if you build them, you should mine), but something like Smartcasting for example I don't know necessarily makes the game better, because the choices are the same, its just easier to make them.
|
Basicly what ScoutingDrone wants is for him to be able to scratch his beard while pondering the great mysteries of Starcraft while playing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
