I'd like to get some feedback from TL about whether you, as a player, would like this change or not:
I just made a suggestion on the Battle.net forums for a feature I think would solve the real-time clock issue, as well as benefit players who like to use the clock as a benchmark for unit/structure build times.
Edit: What this addresses - Interview with Dustin Browder
This topic has been brought up several times, however not many suggestions have been made outside of just changing the clock to be real-time.
I'd like to present an alternative that I believe would benefit both spectators as well as players.
1-Change the "Game-time Clock" to a "Game-time Counter"
-Instead of having time values, this would just be a whole number that increments every "game-time second"
-Doing mental calculations on the fly becomes much easier with whole numbers. For example. Adding 220 to a whole number to know when my level 3 melee upgrade will be ready is a hell of a lot easier than adding 220 to a time value such as 12:49.
2-Add a real-time clock option as well
-This clock wouldn't be synced with the game outside of pauses.
-Since games can be played at different speeds, any games played at non-faster speeds would have different time benchmarks, but who cares? The game-time counter will provide consistency across different game speeds.
-Replays would show the real-time clock as it was, depending on the game speed. (Not sure this would be easy to do, the counter alone would probably be enough)
TL;DR -Change the in-game clock to a number that increments each game-second. -Add a real-time clock that simply isn't a function of game-time.
MiniMap clock mockup
Replay mockup
Options menu mockup
Poll: What do you think of the Game-time Counter idea?
I would totally use it! (72)
52%
You're a terrible person for even thinking this was a good idea. (37)
27%
I don't mind the option, but I wouldn't use it. (16)
12%
I'd give it a try, but would probably stick to the game clock. (13)
9%
138 total votes
Your vote: What do you think of the Game-time Counter idea?
(Vote): I would totally use it! (Vote): I'd give it a try, but would probably stick to the game clock. (Vote): I don't mind the option, but I wouldn't use it. (Vote): You're a terrible person for even thinking this was a good idea.
This is a really nice idea and I would love to have it but I think sc has and lots of other rts has used the clock since forever and having a counter like that would further make the game easier than it already is I think this is something neat but not necessary and this change could reduce the skill needed to be a better player
I'd rather have they just use real seconds for the game clock, and continue to use hh:mm:ss for the game clock. People who cannot add 45 seconds to 3:30 shouldn't even bother adding two numbers in the first place imo.
this makes the game too easy.. they should change the clock so that it counts down and sometimes up adding confusion and really rewarding players that can count while playing.
it is very important that this game is difficult. for example you should not be able to build workers while the clock is at 36, 45 or 78
The applications of this pointless as far as I can tell. Unless you have an incredible memory and are playing with 5 APM, I can't imagine anyone choosing to remember a number such as "1257" for the span of 2 minutes, instead of simply cycling to their forge and seeing that the upgrade is 90% complete. I don't think this makes the game easier or harder. It just encourages players to play and make decisions out of 'memory' instead of responding to what they see visually. Which pretty much defeats the purpose of a "real time" strategy game in my opinion.
On September 15 2012 16:54 paralleluniverse wrote: All times in the game including those on the clock and the tooltips should be rescaled to real time on the fastest setting.
The reason this issue is more complicated than it sounds is because of two things: -Build times of in-game structures and units are all integer values based off of game-time. -Games can be played at different speeds.
I believe trying to sync the game's time with real-time is a complete waste of development time. It would require converting all unit/building build times (which are all round numbers) to obscure time values. For example, a Hatechery that takes 100 gametime seconds to build would be changed to something like 73.53 second build time. (not sure about that calculation)
On top of that, slower game speeds would still not represent real-time, so the only thing it would accomplish would be making build times sound more complicated.
The point of this suggestion is to give people the choice of having a real-time clock without having to completely overhaul code built into the game engine. It would also be good for casual spectators. I'd imagine casted games would have the counter disabled and the real-time clock enabled. Where players may have a preference one way or another.
On September 15 2012 16:54 paralleluniverse wrote: All times in the game including those on the clock and the tooltips should be rescaled to real time on the fastest setting.
True, this way you could see how much time you spent playing a game and in replays you could see the real apm. I can't even think of any reason why they didn't scale it the way you proposed it in the first place.
On September 15 2012 16:42 Soma.bokforlag wrote: this makes the game too easy.. they should change the clock so that it counts down and sometimes up adding confusion and really rewarding players that can count while playing.
it is very important that this game is difficult. for example you should not be able to build workers while the clock is at 36, 45 or 78
Make it so that the game randomly seizes up to, so that players will need to take that into account when engaging. Will make the game so much harder.
On September 15 2012 16:54 paralleluniverse wrote: All times in the game including those on the clock and the tooltips should be rescaled to real time on the fastest setting.
The reason this issue is more complicated than it sounds is because of two things: -Build times of in-game structures and units are all integer values based off of game-time. -Games can be played at different speeds.
I believe trying to sync the game's time with real-time is a complete waste of development time. It would require converting all unit/building build times (which are all round numbers) to obscure time values. For example, a Hatechery that takes 100 gametime seconds to build would be changed to something like 73.53 second build time. (not sure about that calculation)
On top of that, slower game speeds would still not represent real-time, so the only thing it would accomplish would be making build times sound more complicated.
The point of this suggestion is to give people the choice of having a real-time clock without having to completely overhaul code built into the game engine. It would also be good for casual spectators. I'd imagine casted games would have the counter disabled and the real-time clock enabled. Where players may have a preference one way or another.
But nothing actually changes about the game. It would just be the tooltip, which should probably be rounded to 1 dp.
So the only change would be along the lines of writing the hatchery build time as 73.5 instead of 100. The only objection I can think of is that it doesn't look as nice. But "wrong" tooltips also don't look nice.
On September 15 2012 16:10 MadJack wrote: Exactly what this game needed, to become even more easier. Good Job.
lol what is the problem with you guys? I mean come on just changing the time into a counter doesn't make it easier to play the game it just gives new possibilities. I assure you that noone (no not even pros) was actually calculating when exactly an upgrade finished they just check all the time if it is finished yet. but calculating when it finishes and then remembering it so you have the perfect timing without wasting apm doesn't make the game any easier it just opens new possibilities
Personally I wouldn't be able to use this feature as my brain is so accustomed to adding to the time and not to a whole number; I wouldn't be able to look at the counter as a time.
If there was an option that allowed you to choose between counter and clock I would totally support this though, no need to say no to something just because I don't like it.
So your solution... is to have two clocks. I think this will only just make things more confusing for spectators and new players. No one used to ever complain about video game clocks not counting real seconds back in the day, despite it happening all the time in almost every single game. The game shows the game clock, which is what is actually relevant to the game(and can scale with speed setting), it doesn't need to show real time, that's what physical clocks are for.
On September 15 2012 16:45 NeonFox wrote: Honestly I would find this much harder and confusing than a regular clock.
My thoughts too, it is really not that hard to just do a quick mental calculation as to what time your upgrade will finish (or you could just repeatedly babysit the upgrade by looking at how far the bar has progressed lol)
but what if I wanted to send in my over at let's say 6:30, I would then have to convert that into the game time counter number which I think would be a lot harder...
On September 15 2012 16:04 Dasian wrote: 2-Add a real-time clock option as well
-This clock wouldn't be synced with the game outside of pauses.
-Since games can be played at different speeds, any games played at non-faster speeds would have different time benchmarks, but who cares? The game-time counter will provide consistency across different game speeds.
-Replays would show the real-time clock as it was, depending on the game speed. (Not sure this would be easy to do, the counter alone would probably be enough)
So why even put this clock in?
Real time doesn't actually help you in the game, since all the times use game-time instead (for good reason).
On September 15 2012 16:10 MadJack wrote: Exactly what this game needed, to become even more easier. Good Job.
I'm so tired of this stupid comment. If this game is so fu**ing easy, why don't you win some GSL's? -.-
The problem isn't that the game is too easy for ME, the problem is that the game is too easy for the noobs in platinum that keep beating me all the time. Without changes like this, I would be able to roflstomp them with my superior skill. How come no one can understand that this activision ezz-mode business plan completely ruins the competetive aspect of e-sports??
On September 15 2012 16:10 MadJack wrote: Exactly what this game needed, to become even more easier. Good Job.
I'm so tired of this stupid comment. If this game is so fu**ing easy, why don't you win some GSL's? -.-
Because everybody is playing the same, easy game. What an intelligent question :D + Show Spoiler +
I don't think it is easy at all.
Two clocks are obviously too confusing. I think the real time clock would be the best way. It is especially good for new players and spectators. The problem of learning "new timings" is only half true in my opinion. You don't look on the ingame time and say: oh, it is xx:xx, in the next 3 minutes there are broodlords. When you play, you develop some kind of "starsense" and know, based on what you have scouted and how the game went until now, what can happen in the next minutes. And pros dont start their upgrades by calculating the time when they are ready, but by tabbing through all control groups and checking their upgrading structures frequently.
On a serious note, I don't think this change to the game timer would make things any easier. However cumbersome this stupid 60-seconds-in-a-minute is, it is simple not worth the effort to relearn how we measure time just for sc2. It would be like take someone used to measure length in inches and yards, and force them to learn metric in diablo, despite the fact that they never use those units otherwise.
Yes, the system you suggest makes more sense on paper, but no, it is not worth the effort to relearn your intuition just for a computer game.
If you suggest to divide the day into decidays, centidays and milliday on a general basis, I am behind you no problem. But using two systems (RL vs sc2) to measure time is even more cumbersome than using just one of them everywhere, even if it happens to be the one that makes least sense.
On September 15 2012 16:10 MadJack wrote: Exactly what this game needed, to become even more easier. Good Job.
I'm so tired of this stupid comment. If this game is so fu**ing easy, why don't you win some GSL's? -.-
Because everybody is playing the same, easy game. What an intelligent question :D + Show Spoiler +
I don't think it is easy at all.
Two clocks are obviously too confusing. I think the real time clock would be the best way. It is especially good for new players and spectators. The problem of learning "new timings" is only half true in my opinion. You don't look on the ingame time and say: oh, it is xx:xx, in the next 3 minutes there are broodlords. When you play, you develop some kind of "starsense" and know, based on what you have scouted and how the game went until now, what can happen in the next minutes. And pros dont start their upgrades by calculating the time when they are ready, but by tabbing through all control groups and checking their upgrading structures frequently.
Actually plenty of players, including pros look down at the game clock and think "hmm its 14 minutes in, better get ready to make some vikings to counter those broodlords that will appear in a few minutes". When you scout and see no expansion, first thing you should do is look at the clock, if it says 4:00 then no big deal if it says 4:30 then start to worry about aggression etc. Knowing exactly how far in to a game you are helps you make decisions based on what you observe.
See no expansion, see that its only 6:45 in to the game, you know that DT's aren't gonna be out yet. I certainly use the clock a lot to help me make informed decisions, I would bet the bank that players much better than I use it even more often and better. Such as scouting a nexus that is 10 seconds in to building and then knowing exactly when to hit with ur army so that it finishes, while you may have "starsense" that allows you to know exactly how long has passed, most people don't.
Plus, I think you are confusing what starsense is and how it is triggered. Knowing exactly how far in to the game you are, i.e looking at the clock, means that you can narrow down the options right away. If you turned off the game clock and played, I promise you that you would think you are 5 minutes in to a game and that DT's won't be ready yet, then 2 secs later a DT rips up ur mineral line. Especially in a game where game-time and real time are different.
On September 15 2012 16:45 NeonFox wrote: Honestly I would find this much harder and confusing than a regular clock.
My thoughts too, it is really not that hard to just do a quick mental calculation as to what time your upgrade will finish (or you could just repeatedly babysit the upgrade by looking at how far the bar has progressed lol)
Yeah, you just get the feel after a while anyways. We may be biased in a way because we play zerg and since everytime you inject your cam goes back to the queens and since tech buildings are typically built next to the hatcheries, you see the progress bars on them. Maybe from a terran or protoss perspective it is harder, even though protoss chronoboost the upgrades qo they should see the progress regularly as well.
I like this idea. Couldn't give a shit about real time, doesn't impact the game in any way other than screw up peoples knowledge of timings for a few weeks
Blizzard would obviously just want to switch to real time seconds now.
But the problem is that a) as they said their entire engine is based one these game time seconds and it is probably at least some struggle to change all of that and b) it's gonna be kinda stupid to adjust the values now. I mean fungal lasts what, 4 seconds? So 4*1.3 = 5.2s? I highly doubt Blizzard would like values like this. So then it becomes rounding and that does change the Balance from what it currently is. Even if it's just minor it may be minor in MANY cases.
What if the option for the counter just exists, meaning you could choose to keep things the way they are?
With a real-time clock, it would still be relevant since all games are played at Faster speed anyway. A DT timing would just change from something like 6:30 to 5:45. Times would still exist, they would just be slightly different. I don't see how this would be a big deal, since HoTS will change a lot of timings anyway.
For those that say you just check your upgrades by tabbing or looking at the progress bar, fine, you can just disable the game counter and just have the clock (game or real-time)
As for changing the tool-tips to real-time, I don't think this would be a good idea for reasons stated in the OP.
On September 16 2012 00:37 Dasian wrote: With a real-time clock, it would still be relevant since all games are played at Faster speed anyway. A DT timing would just change from something like 6:30 to 5:45. Times would still exist, they would just be slightly different. I don't see how this would be a big deal, since HoTS will change a lot of timings anyway..
Why do you want a real time clock in the first place? I don't think you've actually explained this anywhere.
It's pretty pointless actually, so not a good idea. It's not like it's hard to convert seconds into minutes. The people who bother checking the timing a certain upgrade will finish can make those conversions just as easy. Newcomers will never check when an upgrade finish so they can get that advantage window to attack their opponent, so this counter would just make it more confusing and make the UI worse.
On September 16 2012 00:37 Dasian wrote: With a real-time clock, it would still be relevant since all games are played at Faster speed anyway. A DT timing would just change from something like 6:30 to 5:45. Times would still exist, they would just be slightly different. I don't see how this would be a big deal, since HoTS will change a lot of timings anyway..
Why do you want a real time clock in the first place? I don't think you've actually explained this anywhere.
Many people have brought up the fact that gametime is not real-time. I personally would be happy with just the counter, but I'm trying to propose a solution that would make both players and spectators happy.
Many people have brought up the fact that gametime is not real-time. I personally would be happy with just the counter, but I'm trying to propose a solution that would make both players and spectators happy.
I don't particularly object to the counter as an option, though I wouldn't personally use it.
However, none of this explains the pros of having a real-time clock / real-time game time. The interview just seems to be Dustin Browder saying "yes, we'll fix it!" to everything, without having thought things through (and was done in 2011 it looks like - clearly it's not going to change).
A real-time clock is useless without changing all the underlying timings to real time as well. Then you're dealing with fractional values for nearly everything, which will just make things extraordinarily confusing for both players and spectators.
Maybe it was an error for Blizzard to have designed WOL for "normal" time, instead of "faster" time, but that's just the way it happened. It's straightforward enough, nobody is confused, everyone is used to how it works. I don't see any pros to changing anything real time now (even as far as adding a real-time clock).
All I have to say about this is that you must be really bad at reading the clock if you can't make just seconds into minutes and seconds to know your timings based on the current in-game timer. I mean come on, if you want to call it math it's like elementary school level and the thought process is just on two levels (converting seconds into minutes+seconds and then add it to the current time we have displayed to us).
Someone please explain if I got this wrong because it just seems dumb to me. You're asking for making the game even easier to play AND uglier at the same time.
omg... he didn't even know that the koreans are the elites of the starcraft community... c'mon this guys a joke... why does he even have a say in anything that goes on in starcraft........................... ㅡ.ㅡ...
On September 16 2012 02:49 Sorkoas wrote: All I have to say about this is that you must be really bad at reading the clock if you can't make just seconds into minutes and seconds to know your timings based on the current in-game timer. I mean come on, if you want to call it math it's like elementary school level and the thought process is just on two levels (converting seconds into minutes+seconds and then add it to the current time we have displayed to us).
Someone please explain if I got this wrong because it just seems dumb to me. You're asking for making the game even easier to play AND uglier at the same time.
Those that prefer the in-game clock would still have that option. If you don't like the option then you wouldn't enable it.
What I think you're all missing is that the people who have trouble adding 2 minutes 20 seconds to 15 minutes 50 seconds are NOT the same people who even care about timings or keep track of such things.
On September 16 2012 02:49 Sorkoas wrote: All I have to say about this is that you must be really bad at reading the clock if you can't make just seconds into minutes and seconds to know your timings based on the current in-game timer. I mean come on, if you want to call it math it's like elementary school level and the thought process is just on two levels (converting seconds into minutes+seconds and then add it to the current time we have displayed to us).
Someone please explain if I got this wrong because it just seems dumb to me. You're asking for making the game even easier to play AND uglier at the same time.
Those that prefer the in-game clock would still have that option. If you don't like the option then you wouldn't enable it.
Wait. You make a thread asking about opinions and when you get negative feedback you just tell people it would be optional so it's all fine and everyone will be happy. Why are you making a discussion thread instead of just a poll somewhere if you're simply looking for people that like your idea?
I don't see the difference. Both are forms of measuring elapsed game time. Telling someone to attack at 420 versus telling them to attack at 5:00 doesn't alter the fact that if they do their build right they will be ready to attack on time. I seriously believe this is completely pointless. It's like using feet instead of metres. The physical distance is still the same. The time elapsed is still the same.
This Would make The game much more boring too watch... Someone said it makes that People needs less apm and that Would be sad, i like when people needs apm. If we dont need apm we can just play chess instead...
On September 16 2012 03:12 dUTtrOACh wrote: I don't see the difference. Both are forms of measuring elapsed game time. Telling someone to attack at 420 versus telling them to attack at 5:00 doesn't alter the fact that if they do their build right they will be ready to attack on time. I seriously believe this is completely pointless. It's like using feet instead of metres. The physical distance is still the same. The time elapsed is still the same.
Agreed. I didn't even really know that this was some form of issue with the game... is it?
On September 16 2012 03:27 TsGBruzze wrote: This Would make The game much more boring too watch... Someone said it makes that People needs less apm and that Would be sad, i like when people needs apm. If we dont need apm we can just play chess instead...
what the fuck does a time counter and real-time clock have to do with apm.
Whenever I see a post like this I die a little inside.
I'm just confused. Are you talking about like it shows the current time in ones area like how its 14:35 here at the moment? Or you mean real-time relating to how long the game has been going on? If so, why would it be neccisary to add in-game seconds as a additional time? Because isn't the current clock in-game related to the in-game time?
On September 16 2012 02:49 Sorkoas wrote: All I have to say about this is that you must be really bad at reading the clock if you can't make just seconds into minutes and seconds to know your timings based on the current in-game timer. I mean come on, if you want to call it math it's like elementary school level and the thought process is just on two levels (converting seconds into minutes+seconds and then add it to the current time we have displayed to us).
Someone please explain if I got this wrong because it just seems dumb to me. You're asking for making the game even easier to play AND uglier at the same time.
Those that prefer the in-game clock would still have that option. If you don't like the option then you wouldn't enable it.
Wait. You make a thread asking about opinions and when you get negative feedback you just tell people it would be optional so it's all fine and everyone will be happy. Why are you making a discussion thread instead of just a poll somewhere if you're simply looking for people that like your idea?
blizzard knows about all the stuff but it takes them forever to finaly bring them in....... other companies are so much faster.. even the simple things like a clock that doesnt need any design at all.. just fixing the numbers
There are actually people that would do the math to see when an upgrade finishes? Seems so unnecessary, would be better to just get a feel of when they should be done and be able to go back to the buildings to check on its progress.
For the real-time clock, I don't see any reason why not to have the option available if it's not difficult to implement, I personally wouldn't care that much but I don't think it would be damaging.
I'm less of a fan of having a game counter over a game clock, because to me it's a little more intuitive to think of 5:30 for 4 gates or a 4 minute window to hit before broodlords come out, rather than 330 or 240 on the game counter.
No, don't change the time. It's been this way too long. This is change for the sake of change, not change for the better. If this was changed earlier in the life of the game, it would certainly be for the better, but at this point you'd only create confusion. Yea, the game clock is a strange pace of time, but that's just how it is. It's consistent and everyone is used to it.
I really don't understand why they're so hesitant to change it to a fricken real time clock. If they're concerned about the fact that it would be different on different speeds, they can just add a multiplier so that each speed always displays the clock in real time.
I like the game time counter as well, saves some math for the silly base 60 minute/hour.
On September 17 2012 06:35 revy wrote: I really don't understand why they're so hesitant to change it to a fricken real time clock. If they're concerned about the fact that it would be different on different speeds, they can just add a multiplier so that each speed always displays the clock in real time.
I like the game time counter as well, saves some math for the silly base 60 minute/hour.
It would make sense to do this change 2 years ago, but so much of the game is based on timings that making the change now fucks everything up really bad.
On September 17 2012 06:35 revy wrote: I really don't understand why they're so hesitant to change it to a fricken real time clock. If they're concerned about the fact that it would be different on different speeds, they can just add a multiplier so that each speed always displays the clock in real time.
I like the game time counter as well, saves some math for the silly base 60 minute/hour.
It would make sense to do this change 2 years ago, but so much of the game is based on timings that making the change now fucks everything up really bad.
Not really. Before the clock was implemented every timing was based relative to your own build/opponent's build. The world didn't end back then either.
On September 17 2012 06:35 revy wrote: I really don't understand why they're so hesitant to change it to a fricken real time clock. If they're concerned about the fact that it would be different on different speeds, they can just add a multiplier so that each speed always displays the clock in real time.
I like the game time counter as well, saves some math for the silly base 60 minute/hour.
It would make sense to do this change 2 years ago, but so much of the game is based on timings that making the change now fucks everything up really bad.
Not really. Before the clock was implemented every timing was based relative to your own build/opponent's build. The world didn't end back then either.
That's a different situation. Something was added and nothing was taken away. If anything, it made the easier/more organized. Now we're talking about (essentially) removing something and adding something else. Also, the game is now over 2 years old. The effect seen from a change now would be much different than what we would have been seen back then if it was a comparable scenario.
I'm not saying that you're wrong. This is just my opinion (though that should go without saying..... it often doesn't)
On September 17 2012 06:35 revy wrote: I really don't understand why they're so hesitant to change it to a fricken real time clock. If they're concerned about the fact that it would be different on different speeds, they can just add a multiplier so that each speed always displays the clock in real time.
I like the game time counter as well, saves some math for the silly base 60 minute/hour.
It would make sense to do this change 2 years ago, but so much of the game is based on timings that making the change now fucks everything up really bad.
Not really. Before the clock was implemented every timing was based relative to your own build/opponent's build. The world didn't end back then either.
That's a different situation. Something was added and nothing was taken away. If anything, it made the easier/more organized. Now we're talking about (essentially) removing something and adding something else. Also, the game is now over 2 years old. The effect seen from a change now would be much different than what we would have been seen back then if it was a comparable scenario.
I'm not saying that you're wrong. This is just my opinion (though that should go without saying..... it often doesn't)
i agree with you as when they added the clock it merely gave an additional way of measuring an already existing method by changing the clock you change one method which can lead to a mucking up of your timings more so from a confusion perspective as you have to readjust everything mentally.
I'd prefer the tooltips be adjusted to minutes:seconds rather than the game timer being changed to match the tooltips.
Everyone is already familiar with adding times, provided they're in the correct format. We all know intuitively what 1:25 later than 12:30 is, and most people can actually do that on the fly more easily than 750+85.
I agree that there should be some serious attempt to standardise SC2's timekeeping. Currently we're adding 85 to 12:30, oh and multiplying by 1.6, oh and the score screen graphs display 750. It's pretty silly. I'm just not convinced that a raw seconds counter is the best answer.
On September 17 2012 06:35 revy wrote: I really don't understand why they're so hesitant to change it to a fricken real time clock. If they're concerned about the fact that it would be different on different speeds, they can just add a multiplier so that each speed always displays the clock in real time.
I like the game time counter as well, saves some math for the silly base 60 minute/hour.
It would make sense to do this change 2 years ago, but so much of the game is based on timings that making the change now fucks everything up really bad.
Not really. Before the clock was implemented every timing was based relative to your own build/opponent's build. The world didn't end back then either.
That's a different situation. Something was added and nothing was taken away. If anything, it made the easier/more organized. Now we're talking about (essentially) removing something and adding something else. Also, the game is now over 2 years old. The effect seen from a change now would be much different than what we would have been seen back then if it was a comparable scenario.
I'm not saying that you're wrong. This is just my opinion (though that should go without saying..... it often doesn't)
I think you're confusing the suggestion then, as it would be highly likely that they'd make the two clocks toggleable.
On September 17 2012 09:48 v3chr0 wrote: You know, I've read your whole post and it still hardly makes any sense to me, it seems extremely confusing. Maybe it's because I just woke up, idk.
Seems completely unnecessary is all I get out of it.
Suggestion goes like this:
On the Left side: Real counting clock, a real timer in real time. Counts seconds and minutes. If someone ggs and this is saying 15:47, the game really took 15 minutes and 47 seconds.
On the Right side: Blizzard time counter. This counts in starcraft time. Useful because everything in game is measured in starcraft seconds. If something in game says it takes 220, it takes 220 of these. Normally you're playing on faster so these starcraft seconds are shorter than real ones. In the picture it's just counting seconds since the game started, but Blizzard could probably add in an option that would let you display it in minutes and seconds, which would be exactly like it is in game right now.
Cool idea, always thought it was a little clunky that the developers KNEW the game was gonna be played on fastest (which is different from how BW was at first) and yet made the decision to have the in-game clock off anyway.
They can't just put in a real clock by itself without making all the production and research times have fractions of a second, and having them change around if someone is playing in a different game speed.
On September 17 2012 09:10 Belisarius wrote: I'd prefer the tooltips be adjusted to minutes:seconds rather than the game timer being changed to match the tooltips.
Everyone is already familiar with adding times, provided they're in the correct format. We all know intuitively what 1:25 later than 12:30 is, and most people can actually do that on the fly more easily than 750+85.
I agree that there should be some serious attempt to standardise SC2's timekeeping. Currently we're adding 85 to 12:30, oh and multiplying by 1.6, oh and the score screen graphs display 750. It's pretty silly. I'm just not convinced that a raw seconds counter is the best answer.
Yeah exactly. Ideally for me, the timer would be in real-time at faster speed, and all the tooltips would be in real time in the format minutes:seconds
A second timer may be useful at non-standard speeds however, so that both real-time and game-time can be shown.
Edit:
On September 17 2012 11:16 Resistentialism wrote: They can't just put in a real clock by itself without making all the production and research times have fractions of a second, and having them change around if someone is playing in a different game speed.
That's true. Maybe the clock could show centiseconds also? There is quite a few times that already have fractions. Then again maybe just having two clocks would be a better solution.
On September 15 2012 16:10 MadJack wrote: even more easier
On September 15 2012 16:10 MadJack wrote: Exactly what this game needed, to become even more easier. Good Job.
User was warned for this post
lol you're so right. What we should do is make it as hard and as much of a cluster fuck as possible. Fuck MBS or any multiple selection, let's make it to where you can select only 1 unit at a time, so higher apm really stands out. Forget automining, let's make it harder and make you select every worker and send them to mine; and on top of that, let's make sure you have to do it for every single gathering trip or else your workers won't mine. That makes the game harder so it must be good right? Hey I got another idea. Let's make it so that every time you want to cast a spell you have to click it 7 times in a row for it to be cast, cause it makes a game harder, ya'know. Sad that that was the first reply to this thread. /rant
On topic, I really love op's idea, would be great for something like this to get implemented. And it will differentiate sc2 from most other games as well. Don't remember many games with a continuous counter like he proposes. Also, not sure why but it always bugged me a lot that I couldn't see real time in game, would be happy to see that changed.
edit: on second thought, seven clicks is too easy. Make it 24 clicks, and if you miss the number, the spell will self cast. Let's say if you try to storm, but click 23 times, your own hts will get stormed. Best idea ever to make the gamer harder and better, i know, no need to thank me.
I mean it's a nice cosmetic change I suppose, but I would rather their development team push out Heart of the Swarm earlier than change something that honestly doesn't matter.
On September 15 2012 16:10 MadJack wrote: Exactly what this game needed, to become even more easier. Good Job.
User was warned for this post
lol you're so right. What we should do is make it as hard and as much of a cluster fuck as possible. Fuck MBS or any multiple selection, let's make it to where you can select only 1 unit at a time, so higher apm really stands out. Forget automining, let's make it harder and make you select every worker and send them to mine; and on top of that, let's make sure you have to do it for every single gathering trip or else your workers won't mine. That makes the game harder so it must be good right? Hey I got another idea. Let's make it so that every time you want to cast a spell you have to click it 7 times in a row for it to be cast, cause it makes a game harder, ya'know. Sad that that was the first reply to this thread. /rant
On topic, I really love op's idea, would be great for something like this to get implemented. And it will differentiate sc2 from most other games as well. Don't remember many games with a continuous counter like he proposes. Also, not sure why but it always bugged me a lot that I couldn't see real time in game, would be happy to see that changed.
edit: on second thought, seven clicks is too easy. Make it 24 clicks, and if you miss the number, the spell will self cast. Let's say if you try to storm, but click 23 times, your own hts will get stormed. Best idea ever to make the gamer harder and better, i know, no need to thank me.
Still too easy. How about clicking a move command anywhere where a unit can't actually get to will cause the unit to instantly self-destruct. Get all your clicks precisely right or lose everything!
And units don't auto-attack. You have to manually select each unit and click an opposing unit for it to attack. And it'll only do so once per click so you have to keep clicking.
Game would be so much harder! So much skill! :D
On topic: I don't know actually. Having it as an option would be ok, but honestly I prefer the clock to be scaled to the game speed so I wouldn't use it.
In short: I don't see any reason why not, so long as you don't HAVE to use it.
We agree that the in-game clock can be a little confusing, and we’re looking at ways to solve this issue. We’re concerned about forcibly adjusting game time across the board because it may have a negative impact on those who frequently use the clock to help with timings, but allowing players to choose whether they want their clocks to display real time or game time sounds like it could potentially be an option. Needless to say, this is something we’re still discussing internally, so we’re not quite sure when or if a feature like this will be added.
honestly its only a small inconvenience that has a lifetime of results if changed to be correct time.Not only will it fix that, but it will also bring more meaning to what Real Apm numbers are. change it to real time. Players will adapt to the changes in no time. It should not even be a concern. Now is the time to do it.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Alz4P.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/749ls.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9cILv.jpg)
