|
There will obviously be balance shifts when gameplay values are changed. Nobody is claiming otherwise. This thread is about the effect these changes have on the clarity and spectator-friendliness of SC2. |
On July 05 2012 11:49 larse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 11:08 pzea469 wrote:On July 05 2012 09:48 gawk wrote:
This looks way better than the normal pathing.
I uploaded some more ladder maps to EU:
MMAntigaShipyard
MMCondemnedRidge
MMEntombedValley
MMKorhalCompound
MMMetropolis
MMOhana
MMTaldarim
MMShakurasPlateau
I wanted to add some GSL/ESV maps too but don't know how to do that (e.g. whirlwind). Thank you, I uploaded those to NA now to match. Well, I'm glad this has gotten so much attention and that so many people do in fact feel the same way about the automatic and immediate balling up of armies. But we really need people to post their replays and make vods, especially big names in the community, or else this will die and any chance of having Blizzard reconsider looking at army clumping will be gone. If you like what MM does and you have any way of encouraging anyone to play on the maps and post a replay, please do so. 1 replay and 1 amateur vod isn't gonna cut it. I completely agree that we need some big names to sustain this mod. Even the fewer resources per base mod is slowly dying out. But one thing of the fewer resources per base mod is not that good anymore--even the original author started to admit its fundamental problems. But I would say that this clump up issue will never change and this mod will have its validity in sc2 forever, if Blizzard doesn't do something similar instead. And thank you for making this issue out there, pzea469, truly.
Fewers Resource + This =?
|
On July 05 2012 01:27 Mr Cochese wrote:
I thought the OP was going to be a Luddite whinger begging for a return to the shonky pathing of Starcraft 1, where units used to endlessly bump into each and get stuck, so I was pleased to see that his proposition was to make units move in formation. I've been playing RTS (quite mediocrely) since the original Dune 2 and I've always thought that moving units in formation is a fantastic idea. You can actually take it even further and lock the speed of all units to the speed of the slowest in the group, but that is an issue for the individual need of each game.
What I don't understand is people wishing for a return to a maximum selection group size of 12. In the older games that was obviously down to some technical limitation, and resulted in many a hilarious session of marshalling large groups of fifty or more zerglings across the map by grabbing 12 at a time. In Dune 2, which I pointedly mentioned just before, the restriction was even greater - there were no control groups at all. So that's the bad old days. Going back to these limited control schemes is not the answer to creating better gameplay, it is wishing for a return to eating shit off the ground.
So I now see how the clumping in SC2 is not the same as formation movement, and as I say I have an existing favourable disposition towards stuff moving in formation. Formation creates strategical and tactical opportunities to those able to exploit it, which is exactly what this genre of games should be about. It's not just about APM to outproduce and outmaneouvre the opponent, though that is certainly (the R in RTS) part of the genre - control improvements expand what it is possible for a highly competent player to achieve, so there is no question that unlimited unit selection removes any skill from the game. Arguing for this to be added into the game as an artificial restriction is the hidebound view here, and against moving forward into the incredible potential of what control and pathing improvements can bring to RTS.
The technology was there, single building selection, unit cap selection, manual mining were design decisions. Coding such a thing is possibly one of the easiest changes one could make.
|
On July 05 2012 11:52 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 11:49 larse wrote:On July 05 2012 11:08 pzea469 wrote:On July 05 2012 09:48 gawk wrote:
This looks way better than the normal pathing.
I uploaded some more ladder maps to EU:
MMAntigaShipyard
MMCondemnedRidge
MMEntombedValley
MMKorhalCompound
MMMetropolis
MMOhana
MMTaldarim
MMShakurasPlateau
I wanted to add some GSL/ESV maps too but don't know how to do that (e.g. whirlwind). Thank you, I uploaded those to NA now to match. Well, I'm glad this has gotten so much attention and that so many people do in fact feel the same way about the automatic and immediate balling up of armies. But we really need people to post their replays and make vods, especially big names in the community, or else this will die and any chance of having Blizzard reconsider looking at army clumping will be gone. If you like what MM does and you have any way of encouraging anyone to play on the maps and post a replay, please do so. 1 replay and 1 amateur vod isn't gonna cut it. I completely agree that we need some big names to sustain this mod. Even the fewer resources per base mod is slowly dying out. But one thing of the fewer resources per base mod is not that good anymore--even the original author started to admit its fundamental problems. But I would say that this clump up issue will never change and this mod will have its validity in sc2 forever, if Blizzard doesn't do something similar instead. And thank you for making this issue out there, pzea469, truly. Fewers Resource + This =?
Magic.
|
On July 05 2012 11:59 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 01:27 Mr Cochese wrote:
I thought the OP was going to be a Luddite whinger begging for a return to the shonky pathing of Starcraft 1, where units used to endlessly bump into each and get stuck, so I was pleased to see that his proposition was to make units move in formation. I've been playing RTS (quite mediocrely) since the original Dune 2 and I've always thought that moving units in formation is a fantastic idea. You can actually take it even further and lock the speed of all units to the speed of the slowest in the group, but that is an issue for the individual need of each game.
What I don't understand is people wishing for a return to a maximum selection group size of 12. In the older games that was obviously down to some technical limitation, and resulted in many a hilarious session of marshalling large groups of fifty or more zerglings across the map by grabbing 12 at a time. In Dune 2, which I pointedly mentioned just before, the restriction was even greater - there were no control groups at all. So that's the bad old days. Going back to these limited control schemes is not the answer to creating better gameplay, it is wishing for a return to eating shit off the ground.
So I now see how the clumping in SC2 is not the same as formation movement, and as I say I have an existing favourable disposition towards stuff moving in formation. Formation creates strategical and tactical opportunities to those able to exploit it, which is exactly what this genre of games should be about. It's not just about APM to outproduce and outmaneouvre the opponent, though that is certainly (the R in RTS) part of the genre - control improvements expand what it is possible for a highly competent player to achieve, so there is no question that unlimited unit selection removes any skill from the game. Arguing for this to be added into the game as an artificial restriction is the hidebound view here, and against moving forward into the incredible potential of what control and pathing improvements can bring to RTS. The technology was there, single building selection, unit cap selection, manual mining were design decisions. Coding such a thing is possibly one of the easiest changes one could make.
That's a very easy statement to be done 14 years later. Technology wasn't always like this, and it's very well possible that they were forced to those limitations due to the average computer at the time not being able to handle and process multiple units on the same selection at once. Even if they could patch the game later, it would be a really drastic change to be done.
Remember that we are talking about SC, a game that was supposed to run on Windows 98.
|
Hey I think we should focus our efforts on getting the ideas in the Dynamic Unit Movements thread afloat. It contains all these ideas and more.
This change is a little too subtle which means not enough is being done to truly influence battles/negate deathballs. I would also argue that since it is so suble it is primarily cosmetic (especially w/ map design).
Rather I should say that more needs to be done than what is suggested in this thread, and that any better ideas should be tested accordingly.
I have no idea what settings were used in pg1 of the dynamic movement thread but I wish we could implement those (korean article translation...). That looks great.
|
ROFL, people keep whinging about SC2 easy mode, but i can't think of anything mroe eazy mode than this.
So, i put my zealots at the front, then my archons, then immortals / stalkers and lastely colossus and 1A right?
with a nice spread of colossus and half a dozen extra zealots on the wings to flank
great, death ball gone, perfect engagements everytime. now the game is 'much' better.
|
On July 05 2012 12:48 Kharnage wrote:
ROFL, people keep whinging about SC2 easy mode, but i can't think of anything mroe eazy mode than this.
So, i put my zealots at the front, then my archons, then immortals / stalkers and lastely colossus and 1A right?
with a nice spread of colossus and half a dozen extra zealots on the wings to flank
great, death ball gone, perfect engagements everytime. now the game is 'much' better.
Except that's not how it works.
Also...if it was that easy then why don't players do that already? Not much is changing, did you even try this mod? For the most part it's actually just cosmetic b/c there are more fundamental issues at work here (units slide around each other instead of sticking/resisting).
And the issues with SCII are manyfold, this is just one of them.
What you are describing is the Protoss deathball.
Which already happens.
|
On July 05 2012 12:48 Kharnage wrote:
ROFL, people keep whinging about SC2 easy mode, but i can't think of anything mroe eazy mode than this.
So, i put my zealots at the front, then my archons, then immortals / stalkers and lastely colossus and 1A right?
with a nice spread of colossus and half a dozen extra zealots on the wings to flank
great, death ball gone, perfect engagements everytime. now the game is 'much' better.
Opponent doing the same -> oh shit -> what do I do? -> react -> opponent counter your moves -> longer battles -> better for spectators -> more people watching -> esport growing
Stop hurting it!
|
You can already do this right now in game, no mods required. It just takes a little bit of skill (what we want right? no ez mode).
Set up your units in whatever formation, attack move on the mini-map in the farthest possible place in the same direction you want to attack and they will keep the formation. The farther away you attack move, the more closely they stay in formation and clump less.
It's quite useful.
|
On July 05 2012 12:26 Zephirdd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 11:59 sluggaslamoo wrote:On July 05 2012 01:27 Mr Cochese wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I thought the OP was going to be a Luddite whinger begging for a return to the shonky pathing of Starcraft 1, where units used to endlessly bump into each and get stuck, so I was pleased to see that his proposition was to make units move in formation. I've been playing RTS (quite mediocrely) since the original Dune 2 and I've always thought that moving units in formation is a fantastic idea. You can actually take it even further and lock the speed of all units to the speed of the slowest in the group, but that is an issue for the individual need of each game.
What I don't understand is people wishing for a return to a maximum selection group size of 12. In the older games that was obviously down to some technical limitation, and resulted in many a hilarious session of marshalling large groups of fifty or more zerglings across the map by grabbing 12 at a time. In Dune 2, which I pointedly mentioned just before, the restriction was even greater - there were no control groups at all. So that's the bad old days. Going back to these limited control schemes is not the answer to creating better gameplay, it is wishing for a return to eating shit off the ground.
So I now see how the clumping in SC2 is not the same as formation movement, and as I say I have an existing favourable disposition towards stuff moving in formation. Formation creates strategical and tactical opportunities to those able to exploit it, which is exactly what this genre of games should be about. It's not just about APM to outproduce and outmaneouvre the opponent, though that is certainly (the R in RTS) part of the genre - control improvements expand what it is possible for a highly competent player to achieve, so there is no question that unlimited unit selection removes any skill from the game. Arguing for this to be added into the game as an artificial restriction is the hidebound view here, and against moving forward into the incredible potential of what control and pathing improvements can bring to RTS. The technology was there, single building selection, unit cap selection, manual mining were design decisions. Coding such a thing is possibly one of the easiest changes one could make. That's a very easy statement to be done 14 years later. Technology wasn't always like this, and it's very well possible that they were forced to those limitations due to the average computer at the time not being able to handle and process multiple units on the same selection at once. Even if they could patch the game later, it would be a really drastic change to be done. Remember that we are talking about SC, a game that was supposed to run on Windows 98.
Uh, Total Annihilation had no unit-selection limit and overall an incredibly powerful interface.
And it came out a year before starcraft. The developers of starcraft, I'm convinced, were just incompetent. It's why the game was so great. Now we have SC2 and they've made smart pathing and everything sucks.
Anyways, back on topic, arguing for unit selection limits to be reinstated is stupid. Game mechanics should break up the deathball, not terrible interface design decisions. I don't see the unit selection limit making much of a difference. It would make players who are not as skilled have a more difficult time of moving their army around. That's it. I don't see it making any other difference.
Broodwar wasn't perfect. It was good, but not perfect. No automine and the unit selection limit are examples of BW flaws. They literally serve no design purpose, and are the results of design laziness. They should not be mistaken for design decisions. The only thing they do is force more tedious micro out of players, to overcome the design flaws of the game's interface.
Personally, I prefer a much more strategy-orientated approach to the game's design. You don't add any strategy or depth to the game by removing auto-mine or unlimited unit selection, so don't do it.
|
On July 05 2012 12:26 Zephirdd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 11:59 sluggaslamoo wrote:On July 05 2012 01:27 Mr Cochese wrote:
I thought the OP was going to be a Luddite whinger begging for a return to the shonky pathing of Starcraft 1, where units used to endlessly bump into each and get stuck, so I was pleased to see that his proposition was to make units move in formation. I've been playing RTS (quite mediocrely) since the original Dune 2 and I've always thought that moving units in formation is a fantastic idea. You can actually take it even further and lock the speed of all units to the speed of the slowest in the group, but that is an issue for the individual need of each game.
What I don't understand is people wishing for a return to a maximum selection group size of 12. In the older games that was obviously down to some technical limitation, and resulted in many a hilarious session of marshalling large groups of fifty or more zerglings across the map by grabbing 12 at a time. In Dune 2, which I pointedly mentioned just before, the restriction was even greater - there were no control groups at all. So that's the bad old days. Going back to these limited control schemes is not the answer to creating better gameplay, it is wishing for a return to eating shit off the ground.
So I now see how the clumping in SC2 is not the same as formation movement, and as I say I have an existing favourable disposition towards stuff moving in formation. Formation creates strategical and tactical opportunities to those able to exploit it, which is exactly what this genre of games should be about. It's not just about APM to outproduce and outmaneouvre the opponent, though that is certainly (the R in RTS) part of the genre - control improvements expand what it is possible for a highly competent player to achieve, so there is no question that unlimited unit selection removes any skill from the game. Arguing for this to be added into the game as an artificial restriction is the hidebound view here, and against moving forward into the incredible potential of what control and pathing improvements can bring to RTS. The technology was there, single building selection, unit cap selection, manual mining were design decisions. Coding such a thing is possibly one of the easiest changes one could make. That's a very easy statement to be done 14 years later. Technology wasn't always like this, and it's very well possible that they were forced to those limitations due to the average computer at the time not being able to handle and process multiple units on the same selection at once. Even if they could patch the game later, it would be a really drastic change to be done. Remember that we are talking about SC, a game that was supposed to run on Windows 98.
Sigh, they were obviously design decisions.
Do you really think automining couldn't be done considering SCV's could automine-rally anyway?
Warcraft 3 has a similar size unit selection cap. Do you really think computers couldn't handle much more than that, when a 2001 game Cossacks allowed you to build up to 5000 units per player with up to 8 players, and allowed you to box select 5000 of those units at once and attack. It also had multiple building selection and there was 0 lag.
Also 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a9a0a uses more processing power than just being able to select 200 units and make them all move at once.
A lot of people mentioned about how backwards the mechanics were in SC1 during the time of its release, such as having to select buildings individually. Again something that would have been really trivial to code, and computers would have been able to handle that no problem.
In the end that design decision ended up improving the game.
|
On July 05 2012 13:21 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 12:26 Zephirdd wrote:On July 05 2012 11:59 sluggaslamoo wrote:On July 05 2012 01:27 Mr Cochese wrote:
I thought the OP was going to be a Luddite whinger begging for a return to the shonky pathing of Starcraft 1, where units used to endlessly bump into each and get stuck, so I was pleased to see that his proposition was to make units move in formation. I've been playing RTS (quite mediocrely) since the original Dune 2 and I've always thought that moving units in formation is a fantastic idea. You can actually take it even further and lock the speed of all units to the speed of the slowest in the group, but that is an issue for the individual need of each game.
What I don't understand is people wishing for a return to a maximum selection group size of 12. In the older games that was obviously down to some technical limitation, and resulted in many a hilarious session of marshalling large groups of fifty or more zerglings across the map by grabbing 12 at a time. In Dune 2, which I pointedly mentioned just before, the restriction was even greater - there were no control groups at all. So that's the bad old days. Going back to these limited control schemes is not the answer to creating better gameplay, it is wishing for a return to eating shit off the ground.
So I now see how the clumping in SC2 is not the same as formation movement, and as I say I have an existing favourable disposition towards stuff moving in formation. Formation creates strategical and tactical opportunities to those able to exploit it, which is exactly what this genre of games should be about. It's not just about APM to outproduce and outmaneouvre the opponent, though that is certainly (the R in RTS) part of the genre - control improvements expand what it is possible for a highly competent player to achieve, so there is no question that unlimited unit selection removes any skill from the game. Arguing for this to be added into the game as an artificial restriction is the hidebound view here, and against moving forward into the incredible potential of what control and pathing improvements can bring to RTS. The technology was there, single building selection, unit cap selection, manual mining were design decisions. Coding such a thing is possibly one of the easiest changes one could make. That's a very easy statement to be done 14 years later. Technology wasn't always like this, and it's very well possible that they were forced to those limitations due to the average computer at the time not being able to handle and process multiple units on the same selection at once. Even if they could patch the game later, it would be a really drastic change to be done. Remember that we are talking about SC, a game that was supposed to run on Windows 98. Sigh, they were obviously design decisions. Do you really think automining couldn't be done considering SCV's could automine-rally anyway? Warcraft 3 has a similar size unit selection cap. Do you really think computers couldn't handle much more than that, when a 2001 game Cossacks allowed you to build up to 5000 units per player with up to 8 players, and allowed you to box select 5000 of those units at once and attack. It also had multiple building selection and there was 0 lag. Also 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a9a0a uses more processing power than just being able to select 200 units and make them all move at once. A lot of people mentioned about how backwards the mechanics were in SC1 during the time of its release, such as having to select buildings individually. Again something that would have been really trivial to code, and computers would have been able to handle that no problem.. In the end that design decision ended up improving the game.
I don't understand how these things could've possibly improved the game. Unnecessary tedium. It was design laziness, I say *fisticuffs*
|
On July 05 2012 13:23 Rkynick wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 13:21 sluggaslamoo wrote:On July 05 2012 12:26 Zephirdd wrote:On July 05 2012 11:59 sluggaslamoo wrote:On July 05 2012 01:27 Mr Cochese wrote:
I thought the OP was going to be a Luddite whinger begging for a return to the shonky pathing of Starcraft 1, where units used to endlessly bump into each and get stuck, so I was pleased to see that his proposition was to make units move in formation. I've been playing RTS (quite mediocrely) since the original Dune 2 and I've always thought that moving units in formation is a fantastic idea. You can actually take it even further and lock the speed of all units to the speed of the slowest in the group, but that is an issue for the individual need of each game.
What I don't understand is people wishing for a return to a maximum selection group size of 12. In the older games that was obviously down to some technical limitation, and resulted in many a hilarious session of marshalling large groups of fifty or more zerglings across the map by grabbing 12 at a time. In Dune 2, which I pointedly mentioned just before, the restriction was even greater - there were no control groups at all. So that's the bad old days. Going back to these limited control schemes is not the answer to creating better gameplay, it is wishing for a return to eating shit off the ground.
So I now see how the clumping in SC2 is not the same as formation movement, and as I say I have an existing favourable disposition towards stuff moving in formation. Formation creates strategical and tactical opportunities to those able to exploit it, which is exactly what this genre of games should be about. It's not just about APM to outproduce and outmaneouvre the opponent, though that is certainly (the R in RTS) part of the genre - control improvements expand what it is possible for a highly competent player to achieve, so there is no question that unlimited unit selection removes any skill from the game. Arguing for this to be added into the game as an artificial restriction is the hidebound view here, and against moving forward into the incredible potential of what control and pathing improvements can bring to RTS. The technology was there, single building selection, unit cap selection, manual mining were design decisions. Coding such a thing is possibly one of the easiest changes one could make. That's a very easy statement to be done 14 years later. Technology wasn't always like this, and it's very well possible that they were forced to those limitations due to the average computer at the time not being able to handle and process multiple units on the same selection at once. Even if they could patch the game later, it would be a really drastic change to be done. Remember that we are talking about SC, a game that was supposed to run on Windows 98. Sigh, they were obviously design decisions. Do you really think automining couldn't be done considering SCV's could automine-rally anyway? Warcraft 3 has a similar size unit selection cap. Do you really think computers couldn't handle much more than that, when a 2001 game Cossacks allowed you to build up to 5000 units per player with up to 8 players, and allowed you to box select 5000 of those units at once and attack. It also had multiple building selection and there was 0 lag. Also 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a9a0a uses more processing power than just being able to select 200 units and make them all move at once. A lot of people mentioned about how backwards the mechanics were in SC1 during the time of its release, such as having to select buildings individually. Again something that would have been really trivial to code, and computers would have been able to handle that no problem.. In the end that design decision ended up improving the game. I don't understand how these things could've possibly improved the game. Unnecessary tedium. It was design laziness, I say *fisticuffs*
I think I saw a statement a long time ago somewhere saying they did single building selection on purpose, even though they had the capacity to do MBS.
As for automining, Workers can automine with waypointing. For example, if I build a supply depot while holding shift and click the minerals, the SCV will start mining once it has finished building its supply depot. You just can't rally an SCV from a Command Center to automatically start mining.
Warcraft 3 also had a unit selection cap. Maybe it was something they felt was cultural to Blizzard games.
---
As for improving the game. Just think about things like stim/siege/burrow. Stim is so powerful in SC2 even though it has half the firepower. Your average player couldn't actually stim a whole army in BW, it was practically impossible, you were good if you could stim more than half a 60 supply bio army.
Even something as simple as stim a good player controlling his army may have up to 4x more firepower than a bad player with the exact same army.
With all these mechanics there is a law of diminishing returns. More gateways, more time spent on macro. More bases, more divided attention between bases. More units, diminished firepower per unit, more time needed to be spent on taking care of your army.
|
Balance or not...better game experience.
|
On July 05 2012 12:48 Kharnage wrote:
ROFL, people keep whinging about SC2 easy mode, but i can't think of anything mroe eazy mode than this.
So, i put my zealots at the front, then my archons, then immortals / stalkers and lastely colossus and 1A right?
with a nice spread of colossus and half a dozen extra zealots on the wings to flank
great, death ball gone, perfect engagements everytime. now the game is 'much' better.
Inb4 flanked by 250 lings.
|
On July 05 2012 13:29 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 13:23 Rkynick wrote:On July 05 2012 13:21 sluggaslamoo wrote:On July 05 2012 12:26 Zephirdd wrote:On July 05 2012 11:59 sluggaslamoo wrote:On July 05 2012 01:27 Mr Cochese wrote:
I thought the OP was going to be a Luddite whinger begging for a return to the shonky pathing of Starcraft 1, where units used to endlessly bump into each and get stuck, so I was pleased to see that his proposition was to make units move in formation. I've been playing RTS (quite mediocrely) since the original Dune 2 and I've always thought that moving units in formation is a fantastic idea. You can actually take it even further and lock the speed of all units to the speed of the slowest in the group, but that is an issue for the individual need of each game.
What I don't understand is people wishing for a return to a maximum selection group size of 12. In the older games that was obviously down to some technical limitation, and resulted in many a hilarious session of marshalling large groups of fifty or more zerglings across the map by grabbing 12 at a time. In Dune 2, which I pointedly mentioned just before, the restriction was even greater - there were no control groups at all. So that's the bad old days. Going back to these limited control schemes is not the answer to creating better gameplay, it is wishing for a return to eating shit off the ground.
So I now see how the clumping in SC2 is not the same as formation movement, and as I say I have an existing favourable disposition towards stuff moving in formation. Formation creates strategical and tactical opportunities to those able to exploit it, which is exactly what this genre of games should be about. It's not just about APM to outproduce and outmaneouvre the opponent, though that is certainly (the R in RTS) part of the genre - control improvements expand what it is possible for a highly competent player to achieve, so there is no question that unlimited unit selection removes any skill from the game. Arguing for this to be added into the game as an artificial restriction is the hidebound view here, and against moving forward into the incredible potential of what control and pathing improvements can bring to RTS. The technology was there, single building selection, unit cap selection, manual mining were design decisions. Coding such a thing is possibly one of the easiest changes one could make. That's a very easy statement to be done 14 years later. Technology wasn't always like this, and it's very well possible that they were forced to those limitations due to the average computer at the time not being able to handle and process multiple units on the same selection at once. Even if they could patch the game later, it would be a really drastic change to be done. Remember that we are talking about SC, a game that was supposed to run on Windows 98. Sigh, they were obviously design decisions. Do you really think automining couldn't be done considering SCV's could automine-rally anyway? Warcraft 3 has a similar size unit selection cap. Do you really think computers couldn't handle much more than that, when a 2001 game Cossacks allowed you to build up to 5000 units per player with up to 8 players, and allowed you to box select 5000 of those units at once and attack. It also had multiple building selection and there was 0 lag. Also 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a9a0a uses more processing power than just being able to select 200 units and make them all move at once. A lot of people mentioned about how backwards the mechanics were in SC1 during the time of its release, such as having to select buildings individually. Again something that would have been really trivial to code, and computers would have been able to handle that no problem.. In the end that design decision ended up improving the game. I don't understand how these things could've possibly improved the game. Unnecessary tedium. It was design laziness, I say *fisticuffs* I think I saw a statement a long time ago somewhere saying they did single building selection on purpose, even though they had the capacity to do MBS. As for automining, Workers can automine with waypointing. For example, if I build a supply depot while holding shift and click the minerals, the SCV will start mining once it has finished building its supply depot. You just can't rally an SCV from a Command Center to automatically start mining. Warcraft 3 also had a unit selection cap. Maybe it was something they felt was cultural to Blizzard games. --- As for improving the game. Just think about things like stim/siege/burrow. Stim is so powerful in SC2 even though it has half the firepower. Your average player couldn't actually stim a whole army in BW, it was practically impossible, you were good if you could stim more than half a 60 supply bio army. Even something as simple as stim a good player controlling his army may have up to 4x more firepower than a bad player with the exact same army. With all these mechanics there is a law of diminishing returns. More gateways, more time spent on macro. More bases, more divided attention between bases. More units, diminished firepower per unit, more time needed to be spent on taking care of your army.
In essence, when these designs decisions influence the gamplay meaningfully (and they rarely do), it is only because the player is untrained. That is, the game mechanics are not interesting enough to reward good control, these features merely keep you from accessing them until you can perform at a certain level.
Anyways, my point is that, between players of the same caliber, these things do not actually influence the game, but just get in the way. The design shouldn't be hurdles for the player to jump through. It should be tools for the player to use, to learn the vulnerabilities and limitations of and then master.
We might as well make it so that players are killed instantly if their APM drops below a certain level-- it would have the same effect as your suggestions!
Again I say the design should be based around adding strategy, not micromanagement. Micromanagement should come as a result of the added strategy. To give an example, with banelings comes marine-split micro. All of these old ideas-- the automine, the unit selection cap, etc-- are without cause. It is merely, "with micro comes micro" as opposed to "with [part of the game design] comes micro." I am opposed to adding micro for micro's sake.
|
I wouldn't mind if max units selected could be turned on in the ui options, to soething like 1 page of units.
That way scrubs like me can train themselves to use more than 1 hotkey for army. I broke my side scrolling habit by turning off side scrolling entirely and only using drag scrolling and mini map.
The other option I want is to turn off mouse clicks for buildings and probes, so all macro is done by hotkeys too.
|
On July 05 2012 13:47 Rkynick wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 13:29 sluggaslamoo wrote:On July 05 2012 13:23 Rkynick wrote:On July 05 2012 13:21 sluggaslamoo wrote:On July 05 2012 12:26 Zephirdd wrote:On July 05 2012 11:59 sluggaslamoo wrote:On July 05 2012 01:27 Mr Cochese wrote:
I thought the OP was going to be a Luddite whinger begging for a return to the shonky pathing of Starcraft 1, where units used to endlessly bump into each and get stuck, so I was pleased to see that his proposition was to make units move in formation. I've been playing RTS (quite mediocrely) since the original Dune 2 and I've always thought that moving units in formation is a fantastic idea. You can actually take it even further and lock the speed of all units to the speed of the slowest in the group, but that is an issue for the individual need of each game.
What I don't understand is people wishing for a return to a maximum selection group size of 12. In the older games that was obviously down to some technical limitation, and resulted in many a hilarious session of marshalling large groups of fifty or more zerglings across the map by grabbing 12 at a time. In Dune 2, which I pointedly mentioned just before, the restriction was even greater - there were no control groups at all. So that's the bad old days. Going back to these limited control schemes is not the answer to creating better gameplay, it is wishing for a return to eating shit off the ground.
So I now see how the clumping in SC2 is not the same as formation movement, and as I say I have an existing favourable disposition towards stuff moving in formation. Formation creates strategical and tactical opportunities to those able to exploit it, which is exactly what this genre of games should be about. It's not just about APM to outproduce and outmaneouvre the opponent, though that is certainly (the R in RTS) part of the genre - control improvements expand what it is possible for a highly competent player to achieve, so there is no question that unlimited unit selection removes any skill from the game. Arguing for this to be added into the game as an artificial restriction is the hidebound view here, and against moving forward into the incredible potential of what control and pathing improvements can bring to RTS. The technology was there, single building selection, unit cap selection, manual mining were design decisions. Coding such a thing is possibly one of the easiest changes one could make. That's a very easy statement to be done 14 years later. Technology wasn't always like this, and it's very well possible that they were forced to those limitations due to the average computer at the time not being able to handle and process multiple units on the same selection at once. Even if they could patch the game later, it would be a really drastic change to be done. Remember that we are talking about SC, a game that was supposed to run on Windows 98. Sigh, they were obviously design decisions. Do you really think automining couldn't be done considering SCV's could automine-rally anyway? Warcraft 3 has a similar size unit selection cap. Do you really think computers couldn't handle much more than that, when a 2001 game Cossacks allowed you to build up to 5000 units per player with up to 8 players, and allowed you to box select 5000 of those units at once and attack. It also had multiple building selection and there was 0 lag. Also 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a9a0a uses more processing power than just being able to select 200 units and make them all move at once. A lot of people mentioned about how backwards the mechanics were in SC1 during the time of its release, such as having to select buildings individually. Again something that would have been really trivial to code, and computers would have been able to handle that no problem.. In the end that design decision ended up improving the game. I don't understand how these things could've possibly improved the game. Unnecessary tedium. It was design laziness, I say *fisticuffs* I think I saw a statement a long time ago somewhere saying they did single building selection on purpose, even though they had the capacity to do MBS. As for automining, Workers can automine with waypointing. For example, if I build a supply depot while holding shift and click the minerals, the SCV will start mining once it has finished building its supply depot. You just can't rally an SCV from a Command Center to automatically start mining. Warcraft 3 also had a unit selection cap. Maybe it was something they felt was cultural to Blizzard games. --- As for improving the game. Just think about things like stim/siege/burrow. Stim is so powerful in SC2 even though it has half the firepower. Your average player couldn't actually stim a whole army in BW, it was practically impossible, you were good if you could stim more than half a 60 supply bio army. Even something as simple as stim a good player controlling his army may have up to 4x more firepower than a bad player with the exact same army. With all these mechanics there is a law of diminishing returns. More gateways, more time spent on macro. More bases, more divided attention between bases. More units, diminished firepower per unit, more time needed to be spent on taking care of your army. In essence, when these designs decisions influence the gamplay meaningfully (and they rarely do), it is only because the player is untrained. That is, the game mechanics are not interesting enough to reward good control, these features merely keep you from accessing them until you can perform at a certain level. Anyways, my point is that, between players of the same caliber, these things do not actually influence the game, but just get in the way. The design shouldn't be hurdles for the player to jump through. It should be tools for the player to use, to learn the vulnerabilities and limitations of and then master. We might as well make it so that players are killed instantly if their APM drops below a certain level-- it would have the same effect as your suggestions! Again I say the design should be based around adding strategy, not micromanagement. Micromanagement should come as a result of the added strategy. To give an example, with banelings comes marine-split micro. All of these old ideas-- the automine, the unit selection cap, etc-- are without cause. It is merely, "with micro comes micro" as opposed to "with [part of the game design] comes micro." I am opposed to adding micro for micro's sake.
I dunno about you but a lot of SC2 players are impressed by good creep spread. It is really the same thing, there are large differences even between top players on how they handle these mechanics. We are still impressed when Flash brings out army sizes that just shouldn't be possible in that time frame even after we thought iloveoov the cheater Terran had good macro which was 8 years ago. We are still impressed at how Bisu is still the only protoss that can keep his first probe scouting till lair tech, and how scourge are never able to hit his corsairs due to perfect use of chinese triangles.
We are still impressed by how Jangbi dismantled Flash by being able to macro off 30 gateways which he had to split between 2 mains because there wasn't enough space to fit all those buildings.
I am in no way advocating bringing back these mechanics as it will simply not happen. However I think there is a need to understand why these mechanics improved the game. Because these positive differences are currently missing in SC2, whether or not they were due to archaic mechanics.
I can make the same argument as yours as to how bad pathing in SC2 (the clumping) has produced a positive difference in the form of marine splitting vs banelings.
|
Ok, I haven't been following any of this at all but basically:
1) AoE can't be made strong because units clump too hard. If it is too strong, you can't "react" in time because your army melts instantly.
2) If units don't clump as hard, AoE can be made stronger. There is less of an excuse for the player to die to AoE, because we can all be like "omg why didn't u presplit".
On July 05 2012 13:47 Rkynick wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 13:29 sluggaslamoo wrote:On July 05 2012 13:23 Rkynick wrote:On July 05 2012 13:21 sluggaslamoo wrote:On July 05 2012 12:26 Zephirdd wrote:On July 05 2012 11:59 sluggaslamoo wrote:On July 05 2012 01:27 Mr Cochese wrote:
I thought the OP was going to be a Luddite whinger begging for a return to the shonky pathing of Starcraft 1, where units used to endlessly bump into each and get stuck, so I was pleased to see that his proposition was to make units move in formation. I've been playing RTS (quite mediocrely) since the original Dune 2 and I've always thought that moving units in formation is a fantastic idea. You can actually take it even further and lock the speed of all units to the speed of the slowest in the group, but that is an issue for the individual need of each game.
What I don't understand is people wishing for a return to a maximum selection group size of 12. In the older games that was obviously down to some technical limitation, and resulted in many a hilarious session of marshalling large groups of fifty or more zerglings across the map by grabbing 12 at a time. In Dune 2, which I pointedly mentioned just before, the restriction was even greater - there were no control groups at all. So that's the bad old days. Going back to these limited control schemes is not the answer to creating better gameplay, it is wishing for a return to eating shit off the ground.
So I now see how the clumping in SC2 is not the same as formation movement, and as I say I have an existing favourable disposition towards stuff moving in formation. Formation creates strategical and tactical opportunities to those able to exploit it, which is exactly what this genre of games should be about. It's not just about APM to outproduce and outmaneouvre the opponent, though that is certainly (the R in RTS) part of the genre - control improvements expand what it is possible for a highly competent player to achieve, so there is no question that unlimited unit selection removes any skill from the game. Arguing for this to be added into the game as an artificial restriction is the hidebound view here, and against moving forward into the incredible potential of what control and pathing improvements can bring to RTS. The technology was there, single building selection, unit cap selection, manual mining were design decisions. Coding such a thing is possibly one of the easiest changes one could make. That's a very easy statement to be done 14 years later. Technology wasn't always like this, and it's very well possible that they were forced to those limitations due to the average computer at the time not being able to handle and process multiple units on the same selection at once. Even if they could patch the game later, it would be a really drastic change to be done. Remember that we are talking about SC, a game that was supposed to run on Windows 98. Sigh, they were obviously design decisions. Do you really think automining couldn't be done considering SCV's could automine-rally anyway? Warcraft 3 has a similar size unit selection cap. Do you really think computers couldn't handle much more than that, when a 2001 game Cossacks allowed you to build up to 5000 units per player with up to 8 players, and allowed you to box select 5000 of those units at once and attack. It also had multiple building selection and there was 0 lag. Also 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a9a0a uses more processing power than just being able to select 200 units and make them all move at once. A lot of people mentioned about how backwards the mechanics were in SC1 during the time of its release, such as having to select buildings individually. Again something that would have been really trivial to code, and computers would have been able to handle that no problem.. In the end that design decision ended up improving the game. I don't understand how these things could've possibly improved the game. Unnecessary tedium. It was design laziness, I say *fisticuffs* I think I saw a statement a long time ago somewhere saying they did single building selection on purpose, even though they had the capacity to do MBS. As for automining, Workers can automine with waypointing. For example, if I build a supply depot while holding shift and click the minerals, the SCV will start mining once it has finished building its supply depot. You just can't rally an SCV from a Command Center to automatically start mining. Warcraft 3 also had a unit selection cap. Maybe it was something they felt was cultural to Blizzard games. --- As for improving the game. Just think about things like stim/siege/burrow. Stim is so powerful in SC2 even though it has half the firepower. Your average player couldn't actually stim a whole army in BW, it was practically impossible, you were good if you could stim more than half a 60 supply bio army. Even something as simple as stim a good player controlling his army may have up to 4x more firepower than a bad player with the exact same army. With all these mechanics there is a law of diminishing returns. More gateways, more time spent on macro. More bases, more divided attention between bases. More units, diminished firepower per unit, more time needed to be spent on taking care of your army. a In essence, when these designs decisions influence the gamplay meaningfully (and they rarely do), it is only because the player is untrained. That is, the game mechanics are not interesting enough to reward good control, these features merely keep you from accessing them until you can perform at a certain level. Anyways, my point is that, between players of the same caliber, these things do not actually influence the game, but just get in the way. The design shouldn't be hurdles for the player to jump through. It should be tools for the player to use, to learn the vulnerabilities and limitations of and then master. We might as well make it so that players are killed instantly if their APM drops below a certain level-- it would have the same effect as your suggestions! Again I say the design should be based around adding strategy, not micromanagement. Micromanagement should come as a result of the added strategy. To give an example, with banelings comes marine-split micro. All of these old ideas-- the automine, the unit selection cap, etc-- are without cause. It is merely, "with micro comes micro" as opposed to "with [part of the game design] comes micro." I am opposed to adding micro for micro's sake.
I'm all for advocating strategies that require a large amount of mechanical skill. Think corsair/reaver in BW or iloveoov/fantasy build in TvP. You still have to think where your dropship goes, what places to mine up, where to harass, where to expand to in order to exploit the fact that your opponent has to play passively etc. but doing so requires a large amount of mechanical skill. Granted, not all strategies have to be played this way, some strategies can be played less mechanically, but the potential should always be there.
|
Ive been playing this in customs with friends all day, and holy shite it feels weird to split your units......AND THEY LISTEN!
Mad ups to the creator(s) of this mod. I really hope the community shoves this in blizzards face and makes this a part of HOtS
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
