|
On July 01 2012 07:25 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 05:31 GGYO111 wrote:On July 01 2012 05:14 Zarrow wrote:Edit: to the above post, have you not read the 30+ pages of people arguing. The result of the debate is that neither UI is better, but each one is simply about personal preference. I think you came to this conclusion all by yourself. Does it not embarrass sc2 fans when famous bw players openly admit that sc2 is easier. That's not my opinion, it's their's, if you don't believe me research it. Why do you think that they say sc2 is easier? Or should I just repeatedly say arbitrary, as if I decide what is arbitrary or not. name one from recent interviews, gogo. forgg not too long ago just said sc2 is not easy. I guess your world is collapsing right now and people stop advocating for 12 unit control or non-MBS. Not going to happen, those are detrimental and terrible designs to games just like how point to move is detrimental to d3. Those are old designs that seriously need to be phased out
Flash also said that when he started playing SC2 secretly that he kept losing almost non-stop.
|
On July 01 2012 07:46 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 07:25 iky43210 wrote:On July 01 2012 05:31 GGYO111 wrote:On July 01 2012 05:14 Zarrow wrote:Edit: to the above post, have you not read the 30+ pages of people arguing. The result of the debate is that neither UI is better, but each one is simply about personal preference. I think you came to this conclusion all by yourself. Does it not embarrass sc2 fans when famous bw players openly admit that sc2 is easier. That's not my opinion, it's their's, if you don't believe me research it. Why do you think that they say sc2 is easier? Or should I just repeatedly say arbitrary, as if I decide what is arbitrary or not. name one from recent interviews, gogo. forgg not too long ago just said sc2 is not easy. I guess your world is collapsing right now and people stop advocating for 12 unit control or non-MBS. Not going to happen, those are detrimental and terrible designs to games just like how point to move is detrimental to d3. Those are old designs that seriously need to be phased out Flash also said that when he started playing SC2 secretly that he kept losing almost non-stop.
That still doesn't say that the game is easy. Also you are talking about the god now. He had the same going on in BW.
|
I think you came to this conclusion all by yourself.
True I came to this conclusion. However, all conclusions are Only drawn by ONE person with other persons acknowledging those conclusions. Seeing as how a previous post wrote out both perspectives and made the logical argument that each is a vice. Therefore, the preference of UI is strictly based on your opinion and not an actual IsSuE. There was then no reply posts and so I believe the matter settled. Unless you disagree, then by all means tell me What your opinion is.
|
On July 01 2012 07:50 Mehukannu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 07:46 lorkac wrote:On July 01 2012 07:25 iky43210 wrote:On July 01 2012 05:31 GGYO111 wrote:On July 01 2012 05:14 Zarrow wrote:Edit: to the above post, have you not read the 30+ pages of people arguing. The result of the debate is that neither UI is better, but each one is simply about personal preference. I think you came to this conclusion all by yourself. Does it not embarrass sc2 fans when famous bw players openly admit that sc2 is easier. That's not my opinion, it's their's, if you don't believe me research it. Why do you think that they say sc2 is easier? Or should I just repeatedly say arbitrary, as if I decide what is arbitrary or not. name one from recent interviews, gogo. forgg not too long ago just said sc2 is not easy. I guess your world is collapsing right now and people stop advocating for 12 unit control or non-MBS. Not going to happen, those are detrimental and terrible designs to games just like how point to move is detrimental to d3. Those are old designs that seriously need to be phased out Flash also said that when he started playing SC2 secretly that he kept losing almost non-stop. That still doesn't say that the game is easy. Also you are talking about the god now. He had the same going on in BW.
I remember Morrow posting in a thread somewhere that there's a lot of things he wants to be able to do in SC2 but that it's just too hard.
Although I'll give you a bone that Flash supposedly said that Nestea was a genius but just didn't have the best mechanics.
|
and people stop advocating for 12 unit control or non-MBS. Not going to happen, those are detrimental and terrible designs to games just like how point to move is detrimental to d3. Those are old designs that seriously need to be phased out
I know it wont change but I will never sotp advocating for a better game.
Detrimental? care to expand on why you say that? my opinion is the exact opposite, macroing from one hotkey is easier but that does not make it better. Just like non-MBS is harder but that is not the primary reason I think it is better.
D3 is an rpg/hack and slash
SC2 is supposed to set two people heads up better person wins
I dont see the comparison
|
On July 01 2012 05:01 Postaljester wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 04:25 Rokoz wrote:
By no means I am suggesting to return to the 12 unit control groups. However I would like to see that all races can't just storm in and win, but they have to organize their units before engagements and the result of the battle would be decided more with good positioning and army control, rather than just sheer power of army. what is wrong with the 12 unit control group? I think 20 would be a rounder number but 12 is a good size for true army control.
Because it's a UI limitation that serves no other purpose than that. It's entire purpose is to get in the player's way. Fundamentally, it's no different than taking away hotkeys. Both of them would make the game "harder", but neither of them do so in a fair way.
The purpose of a UI is, at its core, to allow the player to effectively control the game. To give the player the means to do what they want in the game, to allow them to translate their desires into in-game action. Having control group limitations does the exact opposite; it's a completely arbitrary limitation on something for no reason other than to artificially increase the difficulty of manipulating the UI.
It's something you could accept in 1998 as a programming limitation. It's not something you accept in 2010, with computers that are orders of magnitude faster.
|
As the question of old BW features has been raised, I would like to add few thoughts.
I want you to understand that I like playing SC2 but can`t get rid of the thougth that the game is not perfect, that it is missing some very important element. And it naturally happens so that many people including me are trying to find the answer in BW, SC2`s predessesor, which became epic for some reason. You see? If SC2 was perfect, it would have become the primary computer game. I want SC2 to become a perfect game.
I do agree that BW is what it is now because of the programming limitations of the late 90s, but some of these BW features are actually really nice and I would even say that these features are exactly what made BW so epic.
I would like to give a very simple comparison - people invented bicycle, while there were no cars, that are actually faster, bigger, coller etc. Then why do so many people across the globe like to ride bicycles today? I think because it is really joyful to mechanically and routinely push the bicycle forward. A "player" needs not only to drive the bicycle in the right way, he also has to obtain mechanical strength to do it. Posessing and accumulating this mechanical strength is joyful. Observing professional gamers show their enormous strength is amazing.
Maybe, these thing are exactly what the game is lacking. Personally I find it very interesting to feel the difficulty of the following things:
- no automine, every player has to send workers to minaral line - and these routine, these mechanical actions are joyful because you can feel how income increases each time you choose a probe and send it to mine. 3 base saturaiton is already an accomplishment.
- army production without multiple buildngs selection, when your actions have direct impact on the size of the army. You see and feel how clicking turns into visible force. In SC2 zerg can simply push two buttons to make a 100 limit army. In BW reaching 100 limit is something to be respected while in SC2 having 200 limit means nothing.
- army movement with 12 max control groups - it made me respect players capable of moving huge armies of zergs, terrans and protosses across the map. In SC2 most of the players have their entire army in 1! control group - this is the cause of stupid deathballs and a-click destruction which i hate. I heard Jaedong could use buttons from 1 to 0 to bind the hatcheries in order to produce the army and then, when army popped out from the eggs, he reprogrammed all the buttons from 1 to 0 to control the whole army just to send into the fight. Then, Jaedong returns back to hatcheries to bind them again. Isn`t it fantastic? It is exactly what makes me open my mouth while watching pros play.
- non-smart casting, the same as mentioned above - ability to cast storms in BW was something to be respected. In SC2 a guy can dig his nose with one hand and therefore land stupidly strong storms onto the opponent`s army.
|
On June 17 2012 01:22 NukeD wrote:
If you were Dustin Browder what would you do?
I think he was right when he said that making SC2 is going to be like making basketball 2. Its insanely difficult to do. At least hes got the balls to try.
If you use this analogy, Dusten Browder would make basketball 2 a game where the only way to score was by dunking.
|
On July 01 2012 20:13 Polygamy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 01:22 NukeD wrote:
If you were Dustin Browder what would you do?
I think he was right when he said that making SC2 is going to be like making basketball 2. Its insanely difficult to do. At least hes got the balls to try. If you use this analogy, Dusten Browder would make basketball 2 a game where the only way to score was by dunking.
Basketball has had many Justin Browders changing it throughout its long history. Many of its rules today were not the rules of when it first got popular. Realistically, SC2's Justin Browder would keep all the rules the same but raise the height of the net by another 4-6 feet to decrease the effectiveness of dunks and to enforce short range lay-ups which would mean that the game play would become more team focused and less star player focused as the game would stop being about momentum monsters charging the net and become more akin to Michael Jordan fade-away lay ups.
EDIT:
In case you don't know much about basketball, lay ups are the easy to perform and easy to counter shots that ALL basketball and non-basketball players use. It literally is the act of being close enough to the basket for you to toss the ball in. Dunks are hard to stop since you have a 180-200+ human being charging at you. Basketball would become a more technical game dependent on zone control and clearing lanes of play instead of what we currently have where Le Bron or Shaq goes terminal velocity at the rim with no one to stop them. Well shaq doesn't need much velocity, but the same philosophy applies.
|
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote:
It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
I like it when the first posts (with a sound exception) are the ones that make the most sense.
On July 01 2012 20:13 Polygamy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 01:22 NukeD wrote:
If you were Dustin Browder what would you do?
I think he was right when he said that making SC2 is going to be like making basketball 2. Its insanely difficult to do. At least hes got the balls to try. If you use this analogy, Dusten Browder would make basketball 2 a game where the only way to score was by dunking.
You obviously don't know anything about basket-ball. Bad comparison I guess.
|
Lots of people ride bikes because it's cheaper or allows you some access that cars do not. They also have less restrictions on them. Driving the fastest you possibly humanely can on a bike will not give you a ticket the same way driving a car that way does. Bikes are also easier to park, does not need insurance, cheaper (over time) than a gym membership, etc...
If people enjoyed the mechanical motions they would stick with running (which some people do, but rarely as a means of transport and more as an exercise regime)
|
On July 01 2012 19:57 serojananda wrote:
- army production without multiple buildngs selection, when your actions have direct impact on the size of the army. You see and feel how clicking turns into visible force. In SC2 zerg can simply push two buttons to make a 100 limit army. In BW reaching 100 limit is something to be respected while in SC2 having 200 limit means nothing.
This made me wonder what raising the supply cap to 300-400 would do to the game. Bigger armies would make large deathball engagements less effective, since a major part of your army would get stuck behind. The result should be more action across the map and a greater need for workers thus more mining bases that can be threatened. The armies wouldn't look so wimpy anymore and naturally spread out despite clumping. More opportunities for micro as well.
In essence more action, greater skillcap. Are there any custom maps like this?
|
On July 02 2012 01:49 Poplicola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 19:57 serojananda wrote:
- army production without multiple buildngs selection, when your actions have direct impact on the size of the army. You see and feel how clicking turns into visible force. In SC2 zerg can simply push two buttons to make a 100 limit army. In BW reaching 100 limit is something to be respected while in SC2 having 200 limit means nothing. This made me wonder what raising the supply cap to 300-400 would do to the game. Bigger armies would make large deathball engagements less effective, since a major part of your army would get stuck behind. The result should be more action across the map and a greater need for workers thus more mining bases that can be threatened. The armies wouldn't look so wimpy anymore and naturally spread out despite clumping. More opportunities for micro as well. In essence more action, greater skillcap. Are there any custom maps like this?
We could also do what BW did and zoom in the screen more so that we literally see less of the game. Large armies will fill up the screen because there will be less screen.
Another thing that BW did was have smaller maps than SC2. BW maps were very small in comparison to SC2 maps. That would also make it so that SC2 armies "fill the map more."
Smaller resolution + smaller maps--just like BW.
|
^I don't know, BW maps don't strike me as very small...
|
On July 02 2012 02:58 blubbdavid wrote:
^I don't know, BW maps don't strike me as very small...
256x256 is the biggest they get--as in that is the physical cap. Which is about the size of Xel' Naga.
It's also physically harder to get around a BW map.
For example, to get from your natural to the watchtower on Xel'Naga you just click through the minimap.
In BW you'd box click about 10~ times to give the command to move to the Watchtower, you'd then box click another 10~ times to grab random stragglers glitching away from your army, then you'd box click a few more times as random units get stuck on doodads/each other in order for your army to get from the natural to the watchtower.
The shift+click command was also less trustworthy so if you wanted to "make an easy runby through the back" you'd have to command the troops to go to the front of the entrance, then when they get there to move halfway through the entrance, then when they get there you tell them to move behind the tall grass, then when they get there you begin your attack. In SC2 you just click on the corner, then shift A-Move to the natural, then you forget about them.
When it is physically more difficult to get from point A to point B the maps will feel much bigger.
EDIT
I put 126x128 (Big Game Hunters) forgetting 256x256 was biggest
EDIT
Most maps in SC2 are >greater than 128x128
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-korean/maps
Most maps in BW are 128x128
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps
SC2 maps are bigger. And with the Galaxy editor--since you can shrink everything, its possible to have a 256x256 map with everything at half scale (excluding ramps I guess?) so it would imitate a 500x500 map.
|
Wasn't it that the community wanted bigger BW like maps so Blizz made Taldarim Altar? I don't know if the 128x128 in SC2 is comparable to BW. Don't forget that many SC2 maps have fluff around the edge, basically unpassable terrain, whereas in BW the only unusable space are ridges.
Maybe a mapmaker could bring some light into this.
|
On July 02 2012 03:43 blubbdavid wrote:
Wasn't it that the community wanted bigger BW like maps so Blizz made Taldarim Altar? I don't know if the 128x128 in SC2 is comparable to BW. Don't forget that many SC2 maps have fluff around the edge, basically unpassable terrain, whereas in BW the only unusable space are ridges.
Maybe a mapmaker could bring some light into this.
The smallest SC2 map is steps of war at a measly 124x124 vs most BW maps of 128x128 even accounting "inaccessible terrain" which, for the most part, air units still have access to, SC2 maps would still be larger that BW maps.
It doesn't feel bigger of course. Since in the end its about the difficulty of the action more so than the math of the action that determines things like "feeling."
For example, taking an elevator to the 3rd floor is easier than taking the stairs to the second floor even though the third floor is higher up than the second floor. Taking the stairs forces you to travel more over less space. It's the same thing in BW. When moving an army is a bitch to do, then maps will feel absolutely huge. When moving an army is easy to do, then it doesn't matter if they're travelling twice the distance.
In SC2, the map size makes you worried about being "out of position" in BW the map size makes you go "alright, box click time!"
EDIT
This is why we can't literally just "port" things from BW to SC2, map sizes, unit interactions, gameplay interactions they all play out differently between both games. There's a reason SC2 maps are called small even when they are much bigger than BW maps. It's because the games are different. Making SC2 maps even bigger would not change that. And adding BW units would not change things very much either.
The problems that SC2 has don't get fixed by doing direct ports such "add the lurker, that will fix things!" because the problems with SC2 has nothing to do with whether the lurker exists or not. Between creep spread, baneling mines, and Infestor harass SC2 terrans do more than their fair share of forced scan play. And why is it always the lurker or the reaver? WHy don't I hear cries of 'bring back the scout' "valkery was the shit!" "return medics! because if one thing bio play needs, its medivacs that heal each other!"
People ask for iconic non-boring unit ports to SC2 because there is a large amount of nostalgia with them. I remember when I realized that I could be moving reavers around with a shuttle and began decimating opponents on fastest maps. You should see how many kills a reaver gets when all workers are stacked on one mineral patch 
And lets say Blizzard does return BW units to SC2, and SC2 will have lurkers and reavers and firebats and shield batteries etc...
Well then people would complain about the same things in SC2 that they currently are complaining about--only they don't have the "just bring back the lurker" excuse. Why? because a direct port would reveal them to be OP, they would then be nerfed, then they would become as effective as the units we have now.
The problems with SC2 are philosophical. For example, Mech play is really just tank play. Outside of the siege tank, there is really no advantage to going mech play vs bio play. Why? Because marauders deal heavy siege damage at lower cost and can be gotten a tier earlier. Mech play is literally tank play with hellion meat shields and Thor AA.
Compared to mech play in BW where vultures were not just meat shields, but their own form of heavy crowd control mech play. Spider Mines, run bys, meat shields, etc... Vulture play could exist without tank play, and vice versa. The same cant be said for hellions and siege tanks.
Air play? Non of that in SC2. Mass banshee is great and all--but one phoenix ruins your day. All terran air units are highly task specific. Banshee hits ground, viking hits air, etc... It makes it so that the brunt of air play in SC2 rests on the shoulders of battlecruisers. Unlike in BW where 2port wraiths was both air control and ground assault.
Adding wraiths in SC2 would not solve the issue, since SC2 AA has to be able to handle banshees. Which are cloaked wraiths that deal 150% more damage to ground units. Bring a wraith to a banshee fight and you've got yourself a dead wraith.
The point I'm making is that Barracks tech is not made with factory tech and starport tech in mind (save for medivacs) and vice versa for all three of them. Since barracks play already has meatshields, siege breakers, and spellcasters--why make ravens/tanks?
From a purely abstract level, terran unit design is
Barracks => everything
Factory => splash
Starport => gimmicky play
As opposed to
Barracks =>good unit, splash unit, gimmicky unit
Factory =>good unit, splash unit, gimmicky unit
Starport => good unit, splash unit gimmicky unit
And it's the same with the other races as well. Notice how lair tech doesn't really do anything except give zerg something to support zergling play? How zergling/roach/bane are the mainstay unit until you get to Hive?
robotech for protoss actually works--but their Starport and Templar tech options are atrocious. Also, no synergies between any of their divergent tech trees. Its not like in BW where going Starport tech and templar tech eventually gets you arbiters or going robotech and starport tech allows you to fight off scourge/wraiths with corsairs as you do dropship play, or templar/zealot drops with shuttle play if you went Robo/archives
It forces toss play to be robo+archives tech OR starport tech only. There isn't a synergy or a sense of being able to mix and match tech decisions. This is not a unit design problem, this is a tech tree design problem. Adding lurkers would not solve it for much the same reason adding scouts would not solve it.
|
On July 01 2012 07:46 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 07:25 iky43210 wrote:On July 01 2012 05:31 GGYO111 wrote:On July 01 2012 05:14 Zarrow wrote:Edit: to the above post, have you not read the 30+ pages of people arguing. The result of the debate is that neither UI is better, but each one is simply about personal preference. I think you came to this conclusion all by yourself. Does it not embarrass sc2 fans when famous bw players openly admit that sc2 is easier. That's not my opinion, it's their's, if you don't believe me research it. Why do you think that they say sc2 is easier? Or should I just repeatedly say arbitrary, as if I decide what is arbitrary or not. name one from recent interviews, gogo. forgg not too long ago just said sc2 is not easy. I guess your world is collapsing right now and people stop advocating for 12 unit control or non-MBS. Not going to happen, those are detrimental and terrible designs to games just like how point to move is detrimental to d3. Those are old designs that seriously need to be phased out Flash also said that when he started playing SC2 secretly that he kept losing almost non-stop.
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/g3e0v.jpg)
|
These are two different beasts, but even if the same unit concepts are brought back, I think it would be a good idea. I want the Goliath back!
|
On July 01 2012 14:33 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 05:01 Postaljester wrote:On July 01 2012 04:25 Rokoz wrote:
By no means I am suggesting to return to the 12 unit control groups. However I would like to see that all races can't just storm in and win, but they have to organize their units before engagements and the result of the battle would be decided more with good positioning and army control, rather than just sheer power of army. what is wrong with the 12 unit control group? I think 20 would be a rounder number but 12 is a good size for true army control. Because it's a UI limitation that serves no other purpose than that. It's entire purpose is to get in the player's way. Fundamentally, it's no different than taking away hotkeys. Both of them would make the game "harder", but neither of them do so in a fair way. The purpose of a UI is, at its core, to allow the player to effectively control the game. To give the player the means to do what they want in the game, to allow them to translate their desires into in-game action. Having control group limitations does the exact opposite; it's a completely arbitrary limitation on something for no reason other than to artificially increase the difficulty of manipulating the UI. It's something you could accept in 1998 as a programming limitation. It's not something you accept in 2010, with computers that are orders of magnitude faster.
I always find this explanation to be complete bullshit.
Don't think of it as limiting the UI rather think of it as changing the rules of the game. It's like saying that you should be able to pick up the ball with your hands in football(soccer) because we've got hands here in 2012 and it would be a lot easier to keep control over the ball and do what you want with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
