|
On June 19 2012 07:19 Nazza wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 06:31 Plethora wrote:On June 19 2012 06:06 0neder wrote:
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor. Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example. Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups. I'd actually rather have units that are incredibly abusable, because it's actually quite easy to tweak the damage output to make those units seem less deadly. Wraiths in BW were extremely microable, but their pew pew lasers did only a fraction of what a banshee does. However, they were extremely versatile. I guess it is a partial fault of both game design and the lack of LAN. I also heard that there is an in-built latency of 200 ms on b.net? Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 07:01 Fyrewolf wrote:On June 19 2012 06:49 Xiphos wrote:On June 19 2012 06:31 Plethora wrote:On June 19 2012 06:06 0neder wrote:
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor. Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example. Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups. Its also because of the macro mechanics. At top pro, everyone can chuck out the same amount of guys under a specific time because of MBS. In BW, if you have an advantage in battle, that doesn't mean that you are able to keep up in the production category because it is much harder to do. That's where the level of skills truly shows, in order to become the best of the best, you have to do the above altogether which is much less difficult to pull off in SC2. I'm not so keen on giving up MBS in particular. I prefer the game to be easier to control efficiently, so that you can focus on strategizing against your opponent's strategy, to make for a better strategy game. MBS shouldn't be given up in SC2, which I guess is why they added in the "macro mechanics" into the game to add in the amount needed for the game to be mechanically demanding. And the game should definitely be mechanically demanding. I'm not entirely sure about "strategizing" in-game, usually good players will have some sort of grand strategy figured out before hand. If you are talking about reacting to elements in the game, such as a drop going off, or in-battle micro, then maybe. I feel like there's not many tactics involved from massive fights aside from spell casting and splitting units. Occasionally you have something like blink micro, but most of the time it's something like stutter step, which feels alot less like an actual decision then something that's done as a routine.
Because Strategy encompasses so much, almost everything in game is related to strategy, even if it is not readily apparent or at the forefront. Every single click is a decision and every single click has a reason. Many of them are very easy decisions, or so ingrained in our response that you don't need to put a whole lot of time and thought in them, so that other more important ones which do require strategy get overlooked. You may click to check your opponents upgrades, in order to decide whether to chrono your own, or you may decide not to click even, to save scan for incoming cloak. And there aren't many tactics apart from spell casting and splitting units in BW either when it comes to combat. Just because something feels routine because you have ingrained your strategic response, doesn't mean the response isn't still strategic. While the game should be demanding, that demand also doesn't have to be specifically mechanical, and in fact, the demand is supposed to be that you have to make your decisions in real time(through clicks). By lowering the mechanical skill level required, players can put more focus into their strategical skills. The demanding nature shouldn't come from you fighting the controls, but from the demand of the many simultaneous real time decisions.
However some people(not anyone here specifically) have the mindset that this strategy game should be so difficult to control that "I can focus on my macro so hard that it doesn't matter what strategy he or I do, I'll just a-move over him with more stuff so that I can get promoted up to diamond", the very antithesis of a strategy game.
|
why would we want bw units? blizzard would be glad if everyone just wanted bw units ported but we are not paying money for old ideas.
|
France9034 Posts
On June 19 2012 23:26 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 07:19 Nazza wrote:On June 19 2012 06:31 Plethora wrote:On June 19 2012 06:06 0neder wrote:
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor. Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example. Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups. I'd actually rather have units that are incredibly abusable, because it's actually quite easy to tweak the damage output to make those units seem less deadly. Wraiths in BW were extremely microable, but their pew pew lasers did only a fraction of what a banshee does. However, they were extremely versatile. I guess it is a partial fault of both game design and the lack of LAN. I also heard that there is an in-built latency of 200 ms on b.net? On June 19 2012 07:01 Fyrewolf wrote:On June 19 2012 06:49 Xiphos wrote:On June 19 2012 06:31 Plethora wrote:On June 19 2012 06:06 0neder wrote:
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor. Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example. Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups. Its also because of the macro mechanics. At top pro, everyone can chuck out the same amount of guys under a specific time because of MBS. In BW, if you have an advantage in battle, that doesn't mean that you are able to keep up in the production category because it is much harder to do. That's where the level of skills truly shows, in order to become the best of the best, you have to do the above altogether which is much less difficult to pull off in SC2. I'm not so keen on giving up MBS in particular. I prefer the game to be easier to control efficiently, so that you can focus on strategizing against your opponent's strategy, to make for a better strategy game. MBS shouldn't be given up in SC2, which I guess is why they added in the "macro mechanics" into the game to add in the amount needed for the game to be mechanically demanding. And the game should definitely be mechanically demanding. I'm not entirely sure about "strategizing" in-game, usually good players will have some sort of grand strategy figured out before hand. If you are talking about reacting to elements in the game, such as a drop going off, or in-battle micro, then maybe. I feel like there's not many tactics involved from massive fights aside from spell casting and splitting units. Occasionally you have something like blink micro, but most of the time it's something like stutter step, which feels alot less like an actual decision then something that's done as a routine. Because Strategy encompasses so much, almost everything in game is related to strategy, even if it is not readily apparent or at the forefront. Every single click is a decision and every single click has a reason. Many of them are very easy decisions, or so ingrained in our response that you don't need to put a whole lot of time and thought in them, so that other more important ones which do require strategy get overlooked. You may click to check your opponents upgrades, in order to decide whether to chrono your own, or you may decide not to click even, to save scan for incoming cloak. And there aren't many tactics apart from spell casting and splitting units in BW either when it comes to combat. Just because something feels routine because you have ingrained your strategic response, doesn't mean the response isn't still strategic. While the game should be demanding, that demand also doesn't have to be specifically mechanical, and in fact, the demand is supposed to be that you have to make your decisions in real time(through clicks). By lowering the mechanical skill level required, players can put more focus into their strategical skills. The demanding nature shouldn't come from you fighting the controls, but from the demand of the many simultaneous real time decisions. However some people(not anyone here specifically) have the mindset that this strategy game should be so difficult to control that "I can focus on my macro so hard that it doesn't matter what strategy he or I do, I'll just a-move over him with more stuff so that I can get promoted up to diamond", the very antithesis of a strategy game.
I completely agree with that. It's like focusing on reflexes and habits (having insane macro, insane mechanics) that demands only practice, rather than focusing on strategies, which demands reflexion, imagination, creativity, intellect...
That would lead to a dumb guy capable of beating a brilliant genius, if he only surpasses him by a tiny bit in terms of mechanics... (well, tend to, not reach this limit)
|
On June 20 2012 00:20 aintz wrote:
why would we want bw units? blizzard would be glad if everyone just wanted bw units ported but we are not paying money for old ideas.
If we thought that Browder was capable of reliably introducing good new units, we'd be less inclined to ask for more old ones. Doesn't matter how old the ideas are if they're good. And I guarantee you noone who still remembers what the Lurker is would be disappointed if it returned. It was possibly the most beloved unit in BW.
|
On June 19 2012 15:42 Plethora wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 14:12 RampancyTW wrote:
It's incredibly obvious that most of the "Make SC2 more like BW" crowd hasn't been keeping up with the SC2 pro/tournament scene. The level of control and overall play displayed by the top players in the scene right now wouldn't have been fathomable even 6 months ago. The mindset coming from many of these posters has been outdated for a long time. Complaining that unit clumping in SC2 is keeping the game from progressing? Are you kidding me?
Top players are constantly moving, splitting, re-arranging, retreating, advancing, etc. on multiple fronts while macroing back home these days and making it look easy, while simultaneously still making identifiable mistakes and inefficiencies that make it clear that the skill ceiling hasn't nearly been reached yet. The ability to efficiently multitask and control everything from tier 1 units to the highest tier is extremely important. Previous "top" players who haven't been able to keep up with the mechanical capabilities currently on display have fallen quickly to the wayside.
Modern-day Symbol, Violet, Stephano, MarineKing, Polt, MC and others are currently demonstrating just how wrong all of the sentiments about the "low skill ceiling" and limitations of SC2 are. Flash and Jaedong for all of their gifts will require months and months of play to even consistently compete with the current top players (if they ever even get there), much less surpass them.
SC2 is different from SC:BW, but to suggest it's inherently worse at its core right now is intellectual dishonestly. While there are problems in current racial interactions, HotS already looks poised to correct most, if not all of them. It took years and years for SC:BW to develop to the point it was the last few years, and SC2 should be afforded the same. To elaborate on your point, this is exactly why I get annoyed with so much patching. I really feel like I just want to see how the metagame plays out over time without patching. But I'd also like to disagree with you to some extent. There is definitely a much higher skill ceiling in SC2 than in just about any other RTS ever made with the possible exception of BW. I'd say that's pretty good praise, wouldn't you? That said the current racial interactions, as you put it, are they way they are largely because of lackluster units. A more dynamic game comes from a player having various options available to him/her that all have different pros and cons but are all viable to some degree. People hate the colossus because it manages to stifle so many options all by itself. If you're a terran and you see your opponent get 3+ collossi, what are your options? Are there any meaningful options aside from vikings? Well, not really no, nothing that will perform well reliably anyway. TvZ, historically, has probably been the most dynamic matchup in that both players have a number of different builds/playstyles/unit choices that can work, but even TvZ has been a little bit on the stale side lately. Again, there's parts of your post I agree with, I guess I just feel your outlook is a little bit too optimistic. I definitely do not feel like SC2 can't be just as good or better than BW in time, but its not there yet and until it is I think we have the right to try and figure out what could be improved.
You must hate TvP in BW then.
My opponent is protoss...
I guess that removes barracks and starport tech unless I try a gimmicky all in/timing push that I hope to god works.
"Oh noes a collosus, I have to add vikings!" Please! "Oh noes protoss, I *have* to go pure mech!"
|
On June 20 2012 00:33 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 15:42 Plethora wrote:On June 19 2012 14:12 RampancyTW wrote:
It's incredibly obvious that most of the "Make SC2 more like BW" crowd hasn't been keeping up with the SC2 pro/tournament scene. The level of control and overall play displayed by the top players in the scene right now wouldn't have been fathomable even 6 months ago. The mindset coming from many of these posters has been outdated for a long time. Complaining that unit clumping in SC2 is keeping the game from progressing? Are you kidding me?
Top players are constantly moving, splitting, re-arranging, retreating, advancing, etc. on multiple fronts while macroing back home these days and making it look easy, while simultaneously still making identifiable mistakes and inefficiencies that make it clear that the skill ceiling hasn't nearly been reached yet. The ability to efficiently multitask and control everything from tier 1 units to the highest tier is extremely important. Previous "top" players who haven't been able to keep up with the mechanical capabilities currently on display have fallen quickly to the wayside.
Modern-day Symbol, Violet, Stephano, MarineKing, Polt, MC and others are currently demonstrating just how wrong all of the sentiments about the "low skill ceiling" and limitations of SC2 are. Flash and Jaedong for all of their gifts will require months and months of play to even consistently compete with the current top players (if they ever even get there), much less surpass them.
SC2 is different from SC:BW, but to suggest it's inherently worse at its core right now is intellectual dishonestly. While there are problems in current racial interactions, HotS already looks poised to correct most, if not all of them. It took years and years for SC:BW to develop to the point it was the last few years, and SC2 should be afforded the same. To elaborate on your point, this is exactly why I get annoyed with so much patching. I really feel like I just want to see how the metagame plays out over time without patching. But I'd also like to disagree with you to some extent. There is definitely a much higher skill ceiling in SC2 than in just about any other RTS ever made with the possible exception of BW. I'd say that's pretty good praise, wouldn't you? That said the current racial interactions, as you put it, are they way they are largely because of lackluster units. A more dynamic game comes from a player having various options available to him/her that all have different pros and cons but are all viable to some degree. People hate the colossus because it manages to stifle so many options all by itself. If you're a terran and you see your opponent get 3+ collossi, what are your options? Are there any meaningful options aside from vikings? Well, not really no, nothing that will perform well reliably anyway. TvZ, historically, has probably been the most dynamic matchup in that both players have a number of different builds/playstyles/unit choices that can work, but even TvZ has been a little bit on the stale side lately. Again, there's parts of your post I agree with, I guess I just feel your outlook is a little bit too optimistic. I definitely do not feel like SC2 can't be just as good or better than BW in time, but its not there yet and until it is I think we have the right to try and figure out what could be improved. You must hate TvP in BW then. My opponent is protoss... I guess that removes barracks and starport tech unless I try a gimmicky all in/timing push that I hope to god works. "Oh noes a collosus, I have to add vikings!" Please! "Oh noes protoss, I *have* to go pure mech!"
x9000.
On June 19 2012 23:26 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 07:19 Nazza wrote:On June 19 2012 06:31 Plethora wrote:On June 19 2012 06:06 0neder wrote:
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor. Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example. Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups. I'd actually rather have units that are incredibly abusable, because it's actually quite easy to tweak the damage output to make those units seem less deadly. Wraiths in BW were extremely microable, but their pew pew lasers did only a fraction of what a banshee does. However, they were extremely versatile. I guess it is a partial fault of both game design and the lack of LAN. I also heard that there is an in-built latency of 200 ms on b.net? On June 19 2012 07:01 Fyrewolf wrote:On June 19 2012 06:49 Xiphos wrote:On June 19 2012 06:31 Plethora wrote:On June 19 2012 06:06 0neder wrote:
Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor. Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example. Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups. Its also because of the macro mechanics. At top pro, everyone can chuck out the same amount of guys under a specific time because of MBS. In BW, if you have an advantage in battle, that doesn't mean that you are able to keep up in the production category because it is much harder to do. That's where the level of skills truly shows, in order to become the best of the best, you have to do the above altogether which is much less difficult to pull off in SC2. I'm not so keen on giving up MBS in particular. I prefer the game to be easier to control efficiently, so that you can focus on strategizing against your opponent's strategy, to make for a better strategy game. MBS shouldn't be given up in SC2, which I guess is why they added in the "macro mechanics" into the game to add in the amount needed for the game to be mechanically demanding. And the game should definitely be mechanically demanding. I'm not entirely sure about "strategizing" in-game, usually good players will have some sort of grand strategy figured out before hand. If you are talking about reacting to elements in the game, such as a drop going off, or in-battle micro, then maybe. I feel like there's not many tactics involved from massive fights aside from spell casting and splitting units. Occasionally you have something like blink micro, but most of the time it's something like stutter step, which feels alot less like an actual decision then something that's done as a routine. Because Strategy encompasses so much, almost everything in game is related to strategy, even if it is not readily apparent or at the forefront. Every single click is a decision and every single click has a reason. Many of them are very easy decisions, or so ingrained in our response that you don't need to put a whole lot of time and thought in them, so that other more important ones which do require strategy get overlooked. You may click to check your opponents upgrades, in order to decide whether to chrono your own, or you may decide not to click even, to save scan for incoming cloak. And there aren't many tactics apart from spell casting and splitting units in BW either when it comes to combat. Just because something feels routine because you have ingrained your strategic response, doesn't mean the response isn't still strategic. While the game should be demanding, that demand also doesn't have to be specifically mechanical, and in fact, the demand is supposed to be that you have to make your decisions in real time(through clicks). By lowering the mechanical skill level required, players can put more focus into their strategical skills. The demanding nature shouldn't come from you fighting the controls, but from the demand of the many simultaneous real time decisions. However some people(not anyone here specifically) have the mindset that this strategy game should be so difficult to control that "I can focus on my macro so hard that it doesn't matter what strategy he or I do, I'll just a-move over him with more stuff so that I can get promoted up to diamond", the very antithesis of a strategy game.
This. Fighting interface instead of opponent doesn`t make for a good game.
|
On June 20 2012 00:50 naastyOne wrote:
This. Fighting interface instead of opponent doesn`t make for a good game.
actually the macro is the easier part of bw. when one can get that right he can concentrate on strategy and positioning
|
On June 20 2012 00:58 Operations wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 00:50 naastyOne wrote:
This. Fighting interface instead of opponent doesn`t make for a good game. actually the macro is the easier part of bw. when one can get that right he can concentrate on strategy and positioning
positioning and micro is easier.
less clicks and more time to think.
It is not unusuall for even lowskill player to have good unit micro& positioning.
Bouncing bact to base to macro during the battle, is quite an ass.
Or did you meaned macro outside of the engagements?
|
On June 20 2012 00:33 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 15:42 Plethora wrote:On June 19 2012 14:12 RampancyTW wrote:
It's incredibly obvious that most of the "Make SC2 more like BW" crowd hasn't been keeping up with the SC2 pro/tournament scene. The level of control and overall play displayed by the top players in the scene right now wouldn't have been fathomable even 6 months ago. The mindset coming from many of these posters has been outdated for a long time. Complaining that unit clumping in SC2 is keeping the game from progressing? Are you kidding me?
Top players are constantly moving, splitting, re-arranging, retreating, advancing, etc. on multiple fronts while macroing back home these days and making it look easy, while simultaneously still making identifiable mistakes and inefficiencies that make it clear that the skill ceiling hasn't nearly been reached yet. The ability to efficiently multitask and control everything from tier 1 units to the highest tier is extremely important. Previous "top" players who haven't been able to keep up with the mechanical capabilities currently on display have fallen quickly to the wayside.
Modern-day Symbol, Violet, Stephano, MarineKing, Polt, MC and others are currently demonstrating just how wrong all of the sentiments about the "low skill ceiling" and limitations of SC2 are. Flash and Jaedong for all of their gifts will require months and months of play to even consistently compete with the current top players (if they ever even get there), much less surpass them.
SC2 is different from SC:BW, but to suggest it's inherently worse at its core right now is intellectual dishonestly. While there are problems in current racial interactions, HotS already looks poised to correct most, if not all of them. It took years and years for SC:BW to develop to the point it was the last few years, and SC2 should be afforded the same. To elaborate on your point, this is exactly why I get annoyed with so much patching. I really feel like I just want to see how the metagame plays out over time without patching. But I'd also like to disagree with you to some extent. There is definitely a much higher skill ceiling in SC2 than in just about any other RTS ever made with the possible exception of BW. I'd say that's pretty good praise, wouldn't you? That said the current racial interactions, as you put it, are they way they are largely because of lackluster units. A more dynamic game comes from a player having various options available to him/her that all have different pros and cons but are all viable to some degree. People hate the colossus because it manages to stifle so many options all by itself. If you're a terran and you see your opponent get 3+ collossi, what are your options? Are there any meaningful options aside from vikings? Well, not really no, nothing that will perform well reliably anyway. TvZ, historically, has probably been the most dynamic matchup in that both players have a number of different builds/playstyles/unit choices that can work, but even TvZ has been a little bit on the stale side lately. Again, there's parts of your post I agree with, I guess I just feel your outlook is a little bit too optimistic. I definitely do not feel like SC2 can't be just as good or better than BW in time, but its not there yet and until it is I think we have the right to try and figure out what could be improved. You must hate TvP in BW then. My opponent is protoss... I guess that removes barracks and starport tech unless I try a gimmicky all in/timing push that I hope to god works. "Oh noes a collosus, I have to add vikings!" Please! "Oh noes protoss, I *have* to go pure mech!"
1) That's pretty much true and most people agree that TvP in BW was the least exciting matchup of the 3 non-mirrors by a good margin. There were pretty consistent complaints that the matchup was *somewhat* flawed and often resulted in the "one big battle and done" thing. Not saying its a bad matchup, but it was significantly less dynamic and entertaining that TvZ or PvZ by a good margin and I don't think you'd find many who disagree.
2) The colossus is a single example of something that is too prevalent in the game as it stands. When was the last PvZ you saw where P didn't use tons of force fields? What's a good counter to high templar aside from ghosts for T? How about low-econ zerg a la Yellow in BW? To be clear, the game isn't perfect and probably never will be. Even BW had limiting factors on player choice, style, and options as outlined above. But in my opinion at least, there are often too few and a lot of games tend to feel kinda "samey".
3) You're comparing a single unit (colossus) to an entire matchup in BW. There's lots of units and strategies that are only really valid in one or two of the three possible matchups for each race and that's fine. Yes, going mech in TvP was pretty much a requirement, but there were quite a few different flavors of mech and plenty of subtle timing differences and playstyle quirks from one player to another, and that's the sort of thing the game should encourage. Would you agree that Flash and Fantasy played TvP differently from one another? So what would you say is the difference between the way MVP and MarineKing respond to Colossi?
|
Because that would be admitting that Brood War's balance is better than anything they can come up with.
|
On June 19 2012 07:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
By lowering the mechanical skill level required, players can put more focus into their strategical skills. The demanding nature shouldn't come from you fighting the controls, but from the demand of the many simultaneous real time decisions.
However some people(not anyone here specifically) have the mindset that this strategy game should be so difficult to control that "I can focus on my macro so hard that it doesn't matter what strategy he or I do, I'll just a-move over him with more stuff so that I can get promoted up to diamond", the very antithesis of a strategy game.
Why do starcraft pros spend so much time, day in, day out practising, huh? What's it all for?
Is it by practising the basics over and over, that something that used take so much effort to do, suddenly became almost effortless to do.
“To become a chess grandmaster also seems to take about ten years. (Only the legendary Bobby Fisher got to that elite level in less than that amount of time: it took him nine years.) And what’s ten years? Well, it’s roughly how long it takes to put in ten thousand hours of hard practice. Ten thousand hours is the magic number of greatness.” A quote from Malcolm Gladwell on how long it takes for a person to be a phenom in their field.
What would happen then, if a player put in the same amount of effort previously and added that with their newer, more finely tuned skills.
The answer to me is, they'd have free time to do whatever they wanted. If everything they do inside the game is intuitive to them, it gives the player all the time they need to strategize. They get so good at the game, that they can focus on the strategy aspect more.
What if two players of equal skill practise everyday, with only one of them doing a limited amount of things, he'll be inferior to the other player who does all of that and more, surely?
It's not about fighting any interface or nonsense like that. It's about watching pros like DRG at a recent Mlg, 1a all of his infestors into a toss deathball. Why did he do that? Because he had every unit on one hotkey.
Where is the strategy in that? You're basically saying "hey flash, you can do more right? So, we'll stop you from showing how good you can be and we'll have the game do more things for you, is that ok?"
Getting rid of unlimited selection, mbs etc etc. would force current players to get better, to approach every battle with more caution than just 1aing all of your units at the opponent.
|
On June 20 2012 03:08 1A1A1A wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 07:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
By lowering the mechanical skill level required, players can put more focus into their strategical skills. The demanding nature shouldn't come from you fighting the controls, but from the demand of the many simultaneous real time decisions.
However some people(not anyone here specifically) have the mindset that this strategy game should be so difficult to control that "I can focus on my macro so hard that it doesn't matter what strategy he or I do, I'll just a-move over him with more stuff so that I can get promoted up to diamond", the very antithesis of a strategy game. Why do starcraft pros spend so much time, day in, day out practising, huh? What's it all for? Is it by practising the basics over and over, that something that used take so much effort to do, suddenly became almost effortless to do. “To become a chess grandmaster also seems to take about ten years. (Only the legendary Bobby Fisher got to that elite level in less than that amount of time: it took him nine years.) And what’s ten years? Well, it’s roughly how long it takes to put in ten thousand hours of hard practice. Ten thousand hours is the magic number of greatness.” A quote from Malcolm Gladwell on how long it takes for a person to be a phenom in their field. What would happen then, if a player put in the same amount of effort previously and added that with their newer, more finely tuned skills. The answer to me is, they'd have free time to do whatever they wanted. If everything they do inside the game is intuitive to them, it gives the player all the time they need to strategize. They get so good at the game, that they can focus on the strategy aspect more. What if two players of equal skill practise everyday, with only one of them doing a limited amount of things, he'll be inferior to the other player who does all of that and more, surely? It's not about fighting any interface or nonsense like that. It's about watching pros like DRG at a recent Mlg, 1a all of his infestors into a toss deathball. Why did he do that? Because he had every unit on one hotkey. Where is the strategy in that? You're basically saying "hey flash, you can do more right? So, we'll stop you from showing how good you can be and we'll have the game do more things for you, is that ok?" Getting rid of unlimited selection, mbs etc etc. would force current players to get better, to approach every battle with more caution than just 1aing all of your units at the opponent.
Uhm, because the game allows people to do stupid stuff the game makes people stupid?
Watch players like Stephano who have incredible unit control, i've seen him on the fly selecting one infestor to fungal, the second to throw down 2 infested terrans to kill the drop... or control 3 groups of roaches seperately to win against almost impossible odds... all while having most of his units on one hotkey.
Artificial limitations don't make a game better... why don't we play warcraft 1 then? Single unit control should make pros even better, right? Or at least warcraft 2 where you could only select 4 units.
Yes, current pros still often do stupid stuff like 1a-ing with infestors, that doesn't mean we should limit the unit selection just so they can 1a2a3a with infestors...
|
On June 20 2012 03:08 1A1A1A wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 07:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
By lowering the mechanical skill level required, players can put more focus into their strategical skills. The demanding nature shouldn't come from you fighting the controls, but from the demand of the many simultaneous real time decisions.
However some people(not anyone here specifically) have the mindset that this strategy game should be so difficult to control that "I can focus on my macro so hard that it doesn't matter what strategy he or I do, I'll just a-move over him with more stuff so that I can get promoted up to diamond", the very antithesis of a strategy game. Why do starcraft pros spend so much time, day in, day out practising, huh? What's it all for? Is it by practising the basics over and over, that something that used take so much effort to do, suddenly became almost effortless to do. “To become a chess grandmaster also seems to take about ten years. (Only the legendary Bobby Fisher got to that elite level in less than that amount of time: it took him nine years.) And what’s ten years? Well, it’s roughly how long it takes to put in ten thousand hours of hard practice. Ten thousand hours is the magic number of greatness.” A quote from Malcolm Gladwell on how long it takes for a person to be a phenom in their field. What would happen then, if a player put in the same amount of effort previously and added that with their newer, more finely tuned skills. The answer to me is, they'd have free time to do whatever they wanted. If everything they do inside the game is intuitive to them, it gives the player all the time they need to strategize. They get so good at the game, that they can focus on the strategy aspect more. What if two players of equal skill practise everyday, with only one of them doing a limited amount of things, he'll be inferior to the other player who does all of that and more, surely? It's not about fighting any interface or nonsense like that. It's about watching pros like DRG at a recent Mlg, 1a all of his infestors into a toss deathball. Why did he do that? Because he had every unit on one hotkey. Where is the strategy in that? You're basically saying "hey flash, you can do more right? So, we'll stop you from showing how good you can be and we'll have the game do more things for you, is that ok?" Getting rid of unlimited selection, mbs etc etc. would force current players to get better, to approach every battle with more caution than just 1aing all of your units at the opponent.
Surely you must agree that using the BW interface as the gold standard is arbitrary. By your own argument, would you not agree that going back to a warcraft one interface with no control groups and limited hotkeys would even further allow players to showcase their skill and time spent practicing?
I'm not saying you're completely wrong, just that its not a black or white issue. I'm personally in favor of unlimited unit selection but against mbs, for example. Your own example shows why using a single hotkey for your army is idiotic and it takes practice to train yourself out of doing so. In addition, putting arbitrary restriction on unit selection would punish zerg more than it would protoss.
The ultimate point is that the game must provide sufficient "things" for players to have to keep track of in order for the skill ceiling to be high enough to have a long term ever-evolving game. It doesn't *really* matter what those things are provided there are a lot of them. I actually think something mechanically demanding that could be easily made use of is more "always good" abilities with significant cooldowns (like > 10 seconds). As an example, eliminate energy requirements for mules and put them on a cooldown. Thus, if you don't hit your mules spot-on, you're going to be losing mule mining time. Throw in some other abilities that work on a similar concept. Give Ravens a "flare" or something like that which gives vision to an area for 15 seconds or something like that and have the ability on 30 second cool down. I mechanically skilled player would be encouraged to be constantly moving his ravens around tossing out flares every 30 seconds while someone less skilled would not have the multi-tasking skills to be able to do so.
To be clear, since I see the critique already, I am NOT in favor of combat abilities on cooldowns. You then wind up with battles and games being decided based on whether or not one side or the other has abilities available or not which is a little too random for my tastes.
|
On June 20 2012 03:30 Plethora wrote:
Surely you must agree that using the BW interface as the gold standard is arbitrary. By your own argument, would you not agree that going back to a warcraft one interface with no control groups and limited hotkeys would even further allow players to showcase their skill and time spent practicing?
For me, it's about rewarding the player who can and not the player who can't. Having a player in BW controlling an army on multiple hotkeys, is in my view more skillful than the SCtoo 1a/deathball counterpart. I honestly see unlimited selection as a step backwards, for it's far too forgiving to lesser skilled players who would get picked apart if they had to control multiple armies across the map.
Also being in favor of mbs, is kind of odd. I mean clicking on each barrack individually, seems like it would take too much time and effort, you know?
Surely having this game as simple and easy as possible is the way to go. Maybe I've just been viewing this the wrong way the whole time.
|
On June 20 2012 04:09 1A1A1A wrote:On June 20 2012 03:30 Plethora wrote:Show nested quote +Surely you must agree that using the BW interface as the gold standard is arbitrary. By your own argument, would you not agree that going back to a warcraft one interface with no control groups and limited hotkeys would even further allow players to showcase their skill and time spent practicing? For me, it's about rewarding the player who can and not the player who can't. Having a player in BW controlling an army on multiple hotkeys, is in my view more skillful than the SCtoo 1a/deathball counterpart. I honestly see unlimited selection as a step backwards, for it's far too forgiving to lesser skilled players who would get picked apart if they had to control multiple armies across the map. Also being in favor of mbs, is kind of odd. I mean clicking on each barrack individually, seems like it would take too much time and effort, you know? Surely having this game as simple and easy as possible is the way to go. Maybe I've just been viewing this the wrong way the whole time.
I think you kinda missed the point...
The thing is, anytime you're placing artificial limits on the interface you should have a good reason for doing so. You could limit everything to the days of 1990 and that would certainly encourage more mechanical skill in gameplay, but it wouldn't really make the game fun to watch. There is a great big spectrum of interface options. Having the interface take care of more things makes the game easier to play but lessens the skill ceiling. The challenge in making a game that is ultimately good is to have balance between having something that is difficult to do, but not absurdly frustrating or limiting.
There is no reason you can't make certain things easier to do while maintaining a high skill ceiling, it just means you have to balance it off by including things that are hard to do as well. Speaking from the realistic standpoint that MBS, automine, and unlimited unit selection are almost definitely not going to go away, I think we should be focusing our energies on finding mechanically demanding tasks to add to the game to balance off the ease created from the current interface.
|
On June 20 2012 04:21 Plethora wrote:
I think you kinda missed the point...
The thing is, anytime you're placing artificial limits on the interface you should have a good reason for doing so. You could limit everything to the days of 1990 and that would certainly encourage more mechanical skill in gameplay, but it wouldn't really make the game fun to watch. There is a great big spectrum of interface options. Having the interface take care of more things makes the game easier to play but lessens the skill ceiling. The challenge in making a game that is ultimately good is to have balance between having something that is difficult to do, but not absurdly frustrating or limiting.
There is no reason you can't make certain things easier to do while maintaining a high skill ceiling, it just means you have to balance it off by including things that are hard to do as well. Speaking from the realistic standpoint that MBS, automine, and unlimited unit selection are almost definitely not going to go away, I think we should be focusing our energies on finding mechanically demanding tasks to add to the game to balance off the ease created from the current interface.
You don't seem to be getting it, do you? Playing BW at a pro level is already mechanically demanding. You're saying get rid of limited unit selection, just so you can add something else just as challenging? Your post is incredibly wishy washy, full of contradictions, I mean you want to make it easier but harder at the same time...
I've also seen the point you've made, multiple times across this forum before. I've not once agreed with it. Placing certain restrictions on a player, creates a skillset specifically needed to play that game. It's one of the things that makes BW unique.
Having to split of armies into hotkey groups rewards people who can effectively multitask, by removing that you're taking away a key skill of the game.
For example have someone new to this game split up their army into 5-10 hotkey groups, then tell them to move the groups around the map and attack at certain locations. What will happen? They'll fail.
Being able to multitask multiple armies is one of the things that make BW unique but you, you just want a shiny new interface. Why because it's 2012 and we can't have games be challenging now, can we?
Lastly, I'm going to stop responding to you now, mainly because your argument is basically "but the 90's" over and over.
Good day to you sir.
|
On June 20 2012 05:04 1A1A1A wrote:On June 20 2012 04:21 Plethora wrote:Show nested quote +I think you kinda missed the point...
The thing is, anytime you're placing artificial limits on the interface you should have a good reason for doing so. You could limit everything to the days of 1990 and that would certainly encourage more mechanical skill in gameplay, but it wouldn't really make the game fun to watch. There is a great big spectrum of interface options. Having the interface take care of more things makes the game easier to play but lessens the skill ceiling. The challenge in making a game that is ultimately good is to have balance between having something that is difficult to do, but not absurdly frustrating or limiting.
There is no reason you can't make certain things easier to do while maintaining a high skill ceiling, it just means you have to balance it off by including things that are hard to do as well. Speaking from the realistic standpoint that MBS, automine, and unlimited unit selection are almost definitely not going to go away, I think we should be focusing our energies on finding mechanically demanding tasks to add to the game to balance off the ease created from the current interface. You don't seem to be getting it, do you? Playing BW at a pro level is already mechanically demanding. You're saying get rid of limited unit selection, just so you can add something else just as challenging? Your post is incredibly wishy washy, full of contradictions, I mean you want to make it easier but harder at the same time... I've also seen the point you've made, multiple times across this forum before. I've not once agreed with it. Placing certain restrictions on a player, creates a skillset specifically needed to play that game. It's one of the things that makes BW unique. Having to split of armies into hotkey groups rewards people who can effectively multitask, by removing that you're taking away a key skill of the game. For example have someone new to this game split up their army into 5-10 hotkey groups, then tell them to move the groups around the map and attack at certain locations. What will happen? They'll fail. Being able to multitask multiple armies is one of the things that make BW unique but you, you just want a shiny new interface. Why because it's 2012 and we can't have games be challenging now, can we? Lastly, I'm going to stop responding to you now, mainly because your argument is basically "but the 90's" over and over. Good day to you sir. The game already rewards the people who can control their army in multiple groups efficiently. The fact that they're not FORCED to control their army in multiple groups only raises the skill floor. It does not lower the ceiling.
SC2 at the top level right now is VERY mechanically demanding. Superior army control and multi-tasking is already dominating merely "solid" players with good overall strategy and macro, and it's nowhere near the ceiling yet.
The skill requirement to play the game at a somewhat competent level may have been decreased with SC2's interface, but the skill requirement to play at a top level is steadily rising and shows no signs of slowing down.
|
On June 20 2012 05:27 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 05:04 1A1A1A wrote:On June 20 2012 04:21 Plethora wrote:I think you kinda missed the point...
The thing is, anytime you're placing artificial limits on the interface you should have a good reason for doing so. You could limit everything to the days of 1990 and that would certainly encourage more mechanical skill in gameplay, but it wouldn't really make the game fun to watch. There is a great big spectrum of interface options. Having the interface take care of more things makes the game easier to play but lessens the skill ceiling. The challenge in making a game that is ultimately good is to have balance between having something that is difficult to do, but not absurdly frustrating or limiting.
There is no reason you can't make certain things easier to do while maintaining a high skill ceiling, it just means you have to balance it off by including things that are hard to do as well. Speaking from the realistic standpoint that MBS, automine, and unlimited unit selection are almost definitely not going to go away, I think we should be focusing our energies on finding mechanically demanding tasks to add to the game to balance off the ease created from the current interface. You don't seem to be getting it, do you? Playing BW at a pro level is already mechanically demanding. You're saying get rid of limited unit selection, just so you can add something else just as challenging? Your post is incredibly wishy washy, full of contradictions, I mean you want to make it easier but harder at the same time... I've also seen the point you've made, multiple times across this forum before. I've not once agreed with it. Placing certain restrictions on a player, creates a skillset specifically needed to play that game. It's one of the things that makes BW unique. Having to split of armies into hotkey groups rewards people who can effectively multitask, by removing that you're taking away a key skill of the game. For example have someone new to this game split up their army into 5-10 hotkey groups, then tell them to move the groups around the map and attack at certain locations. What will happen? They'll fail. Being able to multitask multiple armies is one of the things that make BW unique but you, you just want a shiny new interface. Why because it's 2012 and we can't have games be challenging now, can we? Lastly, I'm going to stop responding to you now, mainly because your argument is basically "but the 90's" over and over. Good day to you sir. The game already rewards the people who can control their army in multiple groups efficiently. The fact that they're not FORCED to control their army in multiple groups only raises the skill floor. It does not lower the ceiling. SC2 at the top level right now is VERY mechanically demanding. Superior army control and multi-tasking is already dominating merely "solid" players with good overall strategy and macro, and it's nowhere near the ceiling yet. The skill requirement to play the game at a somewhat competent level may have been decreased with SC2's interface, but the skill requirement to play at a top level is steadily rising and shows no signs of slowing down.
Relatively speaking, isn't raising the skill floor the same as lowering the skill ceiling?
|
On June 20 2012 05:27 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 05:04 1A1A1A wrote:On June 20 2012 04:21 Plethora wrote:I think you kinda missed the point...
The thing is, anytime you're placing artificial limits on the interface you should have a good reason for doing so. You could limit everything to the days of 1990 and that would certainly encourage more mechanical skill in gameplay, but it wouldn't really make the game fun to watch. There is a great big spectrum of interface options. Having the interface take care of more things makes the game easier to play but lessens the skill ceiling. The challenge in making a game that is ultimately good is to have balance between having something that is difficult to do, but not absurdly frustrating or limiting.
There is no reason you can't make certain things easier to do while maintaining a high skill ceiling, it just means you have to balance it off by including things that are hard to do as well. Speaking from the realistic standpoint that MBS, automine, and unlimited unit selection are almost definitely not going to go away, I think we should be focusing our energies on finding mechanically demanding tasks to add to the game to balance off the ease created from the current interface. You don't seem to be getting it, do you? Playing BW at a pro level is already mechanically demanding. You're saying get rid of limited unit selection, just so you can add something else just as challenging? Your post is incredibly wishy washy, full of contradictions, I mean you want to make it easier but harder at the same time... I've also seen the point you've made, multiple times across this forum before. I've not once agreed with it. Placing certain restrictions on a player, creates a skillset specifically needed to play that game. It's one of the things that makes BW unique. Having to split of armies into hotkey groups rewards people who can effectively multitask, by removing that you're taking away a key skill of the game. For example have someone new to this game split up their army into 5-10 hotkey groups, then tell them to move the groups around the map and attack at certain locations. What will happen? They'll fail. Being able to multitask multiple armies is one of the things that make BW unique but you, you just want a shiny new interface. Why because it's 2012 and we can't have games be challenging now, can we? Lastly, I'm going to stop responding to you now, mainly because your argument is basically "but the 90's" over and over. Good day to you sir. The game already rewards the people who can control their army in multiple groups efficiently. The fact that they're not FORCED to control their army in multiple groups only raises the skill floor. It does not lower the ceiling. SC2 at the top level right now is VERY mechanically demanding. Superior army control and multi-tasking is already dominating merely "solid" players with good overall strategy and macro, and it's nowhere near the ceiling yet. The skill requirement to play the game at a somewhat competent level may have been decreased with SC2's interface, but the skill requirement to play at a top level is steadily rising and shows no signs of slowing down.
It's probably more that the multitasking of Sc2 pro has not quite reached the multitasking ability of BW players. The game does make some things easier, but the potential of the game has not been reached yet. The options for multitasking hasn't changed, but it made it possible for people to just use one large control group. As players get better, we'll see more and more multitasking, already you're seeing multiple attacks and different locations at the same time, that'll probably continue to develop as players increase their skill level.
|
On June 20 2012 05:31 branflakes14 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 05:27 RampancyTW wrote:On June 20 2012 05:04 1A1A1A wrote:On June 20 2012 04:21 Plethora wrote:I think you kinda missed the point...
The thing is, anytime you're placing artificial limits on the interface you should have a good reason for doing so. You could limit everything to the days of 1990 and that would certainly encourage more mechanical skill in gameplay, but it wouldn't really make the game fun to watch. There is a great big spectrum of interface options. Having the interface take care of more things makes the game easier to play but lessens the skill ceiling. The challenge in making a game that is ultimately good is to have balance between having something that is difficult to do, but not absurdly frustrating or limiting.
There is no reason you can't make certain things easier to do while maintaining a high skill ceiling, it just means you have to balance it off by including things that are hard to do as well. Speaking from the realistic standpoint that MBS, automine, and unlimited unit selection are almost definitely not going to go away, I think we should be focusing our energies on finding mechanically demanding tasks to add to the game to balance off the ease created from the current interface. You don't seem to be getting it, do you? Playing BW at a pro level is already mechanically demanding. You're saying get rid of limited unit selection, just so you can add something else just as challenging? Your post is incredibly wishy washy, full of contradictions, I mean you want to make it easier but harder at the same time... I've also seen the point you've made, multiple times across this forum before. I've not once agreed with it. Placing certain restrictions on a player, creates a skillset specifically needed to play that game. It's one of the things that makes BW unique. Having to split of armies into hotkey groups rewards people who can effectively multitask, by removing that you're taking away a key skill of the game. For example have someone new to this game split up their army into 5-10 hotkey groups, then tell them to move the groups around the map and attack at certain locations. What will happen? They'll fail. Being able to multitask multiple armies is one of the things that make BW unique but you, you just want a shiny new interface. Why because it's 2012 and we can't have games be challenging now, can we? Lastly, I'm going to stop responding to you now, mainly because your argument is basically "but the 90's" over and over. Good day to you sir. The game already rewards the people who can control their army in multiple groups efficiently. The fact that they're not FORCED to control their army in multiple groups only raises the skill floor. It does not lower the ceiling. SC2 at the top level right now is VERY mechanically demanding. Superior army control and multi-tasking is already dominating merely "solid" players with good overall strategy and macro, and it's nowhere near the ceiling yet. The skill requirement to play the game at a somewhat competent level may have been decreased with SC2's interface, but the skill requirement to play at a top level is steadily rising and shows no signs of slowing down. Relatively speaking, isn't raising the skill floor the same as lowering the skill ceiling?
No. The first is requiring more skill to do the most basic level of things. The second is making it possible to only do so much with great skill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
