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.
By my logic queen injecting is repetitive?
Queen injection is not repetitive because each time you use the queen, you have the option to choose between inject, tumor, or transfusion.
With regard to no auto-mining in BW, I don't think any pro wants to decided whether or not they want their workers to mine everytime a new worker is created. Therefore no auto-mine is reptetive.
And cooldown on chrono is just bad. It removes strategic timing options in a real time STRATEGY game.
Remember, starcraft is a "Real Time Strategy" game, not a "Real Time Repetitive Spamming" game.
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.
But why is being able to rally your worker to mineral patches NECESSARY? You can do it yourself.
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.
How is building SCVs not a repetitive, binary action? You either want to build SCVs right now, or you don't want to build SCVs right now. If you want to, you toggle it on. If you don't, you toggle it off. If you want, you can just build one SCV and stop like you can right now. This feature wouldn't eliminate the decision, it would just eliminate the mechanical problem of forgetting to make units at a time when you want to be making units. A clear win-win situation.
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.
By my logic queen injecting is repetitive?
Queen injection is not repetitive because each time you use the queen, you have the option to choose between inject, tumor, or transfusion.
With regard to no auto-mining in BW, I don't think any pro wants to decided whether or not they want their workers to mine everytime a new worker is created. Therefore no auto-mine is reptetive.
And cooldown on chrono is just bad. It removes strategic timing options in a real time STRATEGY game.
Remember, starcraft is a "Real Time Strategy" game, not a "Real Time Repetitive Spamming" game.
Lets be honest here, about 99% of the times you inject you do it because you have to. You drop a few tumors every game but thats it and transfuses are mostly an energy-dump that gets used when players slip up on their injects.
No, chrono on a CD creates a different strategic timing.
How is building SCVs not a repetitive, binary action? You either want to build SCVs right now, or you don't want to build SCVs right now. If you want to, you toggle it on. If you don't, you toggle it off. If you want, you can just build one SCV and stop like you can right now. This feature wouldn't eliminate the decision, it would just eliminate the mechanical problem of forgetting to make units at a time when you want to be making units. A clear win-win situation.
I don't have interest in taking the mechanical side out of decision making, so I don't know why you're pretending that I do. I have an interest in removing aspects of the game that don't involve decision making, period. If something should always be done and there's no choice at all, it is fundamentally uninteresting and should just be standardized.. But if there *is* a decision to make, then I am 100% okay with it also having mechanical difficulty associated with making it.
So after reading this thread i did some research, I don't know if these accounts are accurate but I went through the korean masters rank and found a couple names I recognized. I didn't go through the korean names cause I can't read korean. Each player is playing their BW respective race.
5/5 for that vid. I was thinking about the current Formula One drivers list moving all to Formula 3000. Pregnant women better not watch such type of massacre. At least in theory, that's what's supposed to happen, but we'll see.
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.
But why is being able to rally your worker to mineral patches NECESSARY? You can do it yourself.
I'm not defending or refuting the post you responded to, but merely responding to your post alone (DEN1ED). I think it is a balancing act. People only have so much APM, would you rather they dedicate it to moving individual workers and maintaining they sort of structure, or use it elsewhere (wherever that may be). There is no right answer, and it all comes down to design, but I don't think it is necessary as long as there is another outlet for that APM. For example, you may not have to focus on mining as much in BW as in SC2, but perhaps you need to redirect that APM towards building placement and movement since in SC2 buildings tend by more dynamic then in BW.
No right or wrong, just design. I would say the streamlined mining system would be a negative if it was purely a streamline with no other competitive outlet to put that energy towards. As of now I see it as just a redirection of focus, rather then a standalone easy-button.
On October 29 2011 12:20 stangstang wrote: So after reading this thread i did some research, I don't know if these accounts are accurate but I went through the korean masters rank and found a couple names I recognized. I didn't go through the korean names cause I can't read korean. Each player is playing their BW respective race.
On October 29 2011 12:20 stangstang wrote: So after reading this thread i did some research, I don't know if these accounts are accurate but I went through the korean masters rank and found a couple names I recognized. I didn't go through the korean names cause I can't read korean. Each player is playing their BW respective race.
You can have clone accounts so easily in SC2 that I really doubt the validity of anyone's name until it is explicitly identified by a truly credible source.
How is building SCVs not a repetitive, binary action? You either want to build SCVs right now, or you don't want to build SCVs right now. If you want to, you toggle it on. If you don't, you toggle it off. If you want, you can just build one SCV and stop like you can right now. This feature wouldn't eliminate the decision, it would just eliminate the mechanical problem of forgetting to make units at a time when you want to be making units. A clear win-win situation.
I don't have interest in taking the mechanical side out of decision making, so I don't know why you're pretending that I do. I have an interest in removing aspects of the game that don't involve decision making, period. If something should always be done and there's no choice at all, it is fundamentally uninteresting and should just be standardized.. But if there *is* a decision to make, then I am 100% okay with it also having mechanical difficulty associated with making it.
There isn't a decision to make. I'm not saying to remove the current unit production system and replace it with a toggle, I'm saying add a toggle feature on top of it. A bronze league player doesn't decide "I want to make 20 workers the entire game", he just doesn't have the skill to repetitively press the S button enough to get more workers than that. What's wrong with fixing that for him so he can really play the game and doesn't lose all the time?
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.
But why is being able to rally your worker to mineral patches NECESSARY? You can do it yourself.
By your logic, its not NECESSARY to have 12 units per control group right? So you wouldn't mind if blizzard patches BW so each control group can hold maximum 1 unit instead of 12? This would make BW harder right? And you would love it more right?
On October 29 2011 09:58 Oreo7 wrote: I just want an epic ending for BW. KT v SKT proleague was good, and so was this last OSL, but how about one more JvF finals, or Bisu finally winning an MSL, or Flash beating out Nada's records at last? All good things must come to an end, lets just hope the ending is fucking baller as all hell.
These 2 already happened.
oops meant bisu winning an OSL, and doesn't flash still have some left to break? Coulda sworn.
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.....
Precisely. You can also add that pro players must juggle knives while they play inside a moving vehicle they are steering. BAM harder game right?
The difference is that juggling knives and riding wheelchairs make the game less exciting (oh well, at least the wheelchair part but the juggling thingie still makes the game enjoyable in another way) while watching people do difficult things in BW that create tension, drama and awe is not just because it´s harder for the sake of being hard, it´s because it´s harder for the sake of excitement.
Right, because having limited units per control group, no rally for workers, and no multiple buildings in one control group makes BW create more tension and drama right?
Yes actually.. i don't know why it's so hard to understand. Put MBS and everything else into BW, it would not have strategically evolved to this day. It makes the moments when people manage to pull off perfect spellcasting or army control more special, you don't see it every game. The mechanical difficultly directly led to it's success as an eSport. If people could play at a Flash level, say in 2001, then there would not have been the last 10 years of games. And 2001 is already 2 years after BW's release, so it wouldn't be a stretch to say it might have been possible for it to happen with MBS/automining/smartcasting etc.
In reality in 2001 people could not even effectively use units like the defiler because the mulitasking and mechanics required was difficult. Let alone spellcasters people couldn't use most of the units to full effect. In 2010 it was prehaps the first time Queens were used effectively and were actually viable in builds, 11 years after release - and still only a small elite of players can do it very well. We also saw loads of new strategies and variations on old strategies.
RTS games are pretty simple strategically and are usually solved fairly quickly.. it's mechanics that help create the depth for interesting competitive play. SC2 still has it more than most RTS but it's a sequel to the most successful eSport, expectations are high and really it's not living up to it.
How is building SCVs not a repetitive, binary action? You either want to build SCVs right now, or you don't want to build SCVs right now. If you want to, you toggle it on. If you don't, you toggle it off. If you want, you can just build one SCV and stop like you can right now. This feature wouldn't eliminate the decision, it would just eliminate the mechanical problem of forgetting to make units at a time when you want to be making units. A clear win-win situation.
I don't have interest in taking the mechanical side out of decision making, so I don't know why you're pretending that I do. I have an interest in removing aspects of the game that don't involve decision making, period. If something should always be done and there's no choice at all, it is fundamentally uninteresting and should just be standardized.. But if there *is* a decision to make, then I am 100% okay with it also having mechanical difficulty associated with making it.
This argument always pops up, and it's actually pretty stupid. You are not thinking about it clearly. SC2 has tons of areas where it could be simplified to be even easier such as unlimited no cost unit queues, no need to select production buildings at all, even retreating almost dead units if you want to go really far. So unless you are deciding SC2 is the perfect arbitrary level of mechanics, then there's nothing wrong with BW deciding to be harder. Controlling the game is part of the game like combo's in a fighting game which you wouldn't remove simple because it's not a decision. Don't you realize the idea of an RTS about pure decisions is frankly dumb? You want to play a turn based game it sounds like.
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.
But why is being able to rally your worker to mineral patches NECESSARY? You can do it yourself.
By your logic, its not NECESSARY to have 12 units per control group right? So you wouldn't mind if blizzard patches BW so each control group can hold maximum 1 unit instead of 12? This would make BW harder right? And you would love it more right?
Nothing is necessary. It's just a matter of game design and goals.
5/5 for that vid. I was thinking about the current Formula One drivers list moving all to Formula 3000. Pregnant women better not watch such type of massacre. At least in theory, that's what's supposed to happen, but we'll see.
EPT
