|
Of course since I don't play SC2 competitively, I could careless whether or not lesser skilled players struggle with the mechanics. I want difficult mechanics because it's entertaining for me as a spectator. I want powerful spells for the same reasons.
I want to be impressed. So with that said, I want the most difficult game, even if it's less friendly to casual gamers.
Designing a competitive game to cater to casual gamers is a wasted effort...this has been attempted in other genres of video games as well. The casual gamer doesn't dedicate himself to one game...so even if the game is easier, he still won't put in the time to be great at it.
That's why we played fastest map possible.
Smart casting might be easier but it doesn't add anything of value to Esports. And to me, that's the bottom line. It's where all the value for this game is.
|
This would be quite an interesting change. It would definitely take some getting used to. As a toss player, I have some misgivings about it. For one, storms would be a lot harder to pull off, given the way battles look with armies clashing, and how slow they move to get in to position. It might really force the union of HT/WP. On the other hand, I would love to get rid of smart casting for ghosts. A quick scan and just clicking from miles away and autokilling HT's is frustrating to say the least. I'd love to see a test map with this on it to see how it works out.
|
On November 22 2012 03:11 Aunvilgod wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 03:02 Deckkie wrote:
After viewing this all, wouldnt you say that changing smart casting, will not be a proper solution, unless a game does not have clumping (especially the clumping seen in sc2). What do you think would be the problem?
One of his arguments is that smart casting increases decision making. I wonder how that would turn out in sc2 where everything is kinda clumped to begin with.
He also makes an argument about smart casting creating higher damage, how would this work in a game where everything is clumped.
|
i think taking away smart casting (whilst obviously correcting for any imbalance between races introduced) would make the game more fun to watch and play. Great thread, shame blizzard will probably never remove it.
|
also, if casters are too strong, there's a simple solution: BETTER ANTI-CASTERS.
people need to stop being so closeminded and look more to other games that have had problems and have dealt with them.
I used to play wc3 at a high level; there was a time when casters were very dominant, when armies of mostly casters were common. Partly that was solved with the armor-type changes giving casters some vulnerabilities to archer type units; but alot of it was also that in TfT they added powerful anti-casters to the game: spellbreaker, destroyer, faerie dragon; they also gave orcs an aoe dispel with the tauren shaman. (humans already had an aoe dispel, which made them much more resistant to mass casters spells).
there's a lot of other possible solutions to the various issues with current sc2.
|
Canada11258 Posts
On November 22 2012 03:02 Deckkie wrote:
After viewing this all, wouldnt you say that changing smart casting, will not be a proper solution, unless a game does not have clumping (especially the clumping seen in sc2).
There is no one magic bullet that will fix all. I agree that unit movement also needs to be looked at- I did glance over it when I talked about uniform vs non-uniform movement that non-uniform movement (non-clumped) actually creates targets. I think in Overkill is anti-Deathball blog I also talked about the need to change some of the movement.
In a nut shell- a slight increase in spacing between units just for viewability purposes (get rid of unit clipping and units occupying less space on the move), have army movement spread out into a long column more on longer marches so that harass an army on the march becomes easier (Should be a difference between an army on the march and one that is ready for battle.) And increasing the effectiveness of the current ground magic box system for unit spread.
Which I think was Irotor's point. So, yes the current unit movement I don't think is ideal or the most 'smart.' There are smarter ways of implementing spread out units without introducing bugged out goons. (Which only existed because the unit was larger than it had been programmed to think it was. So it kept on trying to fit into too small spaces and buggying out.)
I don't really want to go down the tangent on whether this also is 'unintuitive,' but I do want to acknowledge, that yes unit movement needs to be looked at.
On November 21 2012 22:47 nRoot wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 11:16 Falling wrote:
Adding spell-casters intentionally adds a unit that does NOT have have an automated attack and REQUIRES you to manually cast or it will be in-effective. We are adding difficulty to the game on purpose simply by designing spell-casters.
This part is where I disagree with you. What sets spellcasters apart from other units in the game is not the lack of an automated attack, but that the number of spells casted is limited by energy. Energy functions as an additional resource in the game you have to manage carefully. Spells like Storm or Fungal are simply too powerful to be an unlimited automated attack. The existence of those spells adds depths to the game because players have to decide on how to spend energy to make the investment worthwhile. I doubt the primary intend of spells is to make the game more difficult.
But managing energy is harder. Harder than simply sending your units into attack. You have to manage energy and manually cast for your unit to do anything at all. That is by definition a more difficult thing. It might even be unintuitive that when you send your unit to battle, it doesn't attack. It might even be 'fighting the interface' because it forces you to "click more." But the gameplay it produces is worth it.
And it really isn't that unintuitive that if you order your units to fire at a target, they fire. All of them because you had all of them selected. That stim example is a good one. You may have only intended to stim 4 to scare away the Mutalisks. That was your intention, but the game didn't hold your hand and decide for you what the ideal number of marines to stim was. You selected 40 marines to stim and 40 marines stimmed. You told 15 Templars on one hotkey to storm one spot. 15 Templars on one hotkey stormed one spot. That's pretty straight forward.
The power is in your hands, not the computer to succeed like a champion or mess up with wasted potential. There is just a crazy amount of potential power that can be tucked away in a game when we hand more of the decision making back to the player.
|
You are a wise man Falling, very wise.
|
Great post, Falling. I love your threads! I really hope Blizzard at least sees this thread; if not a change for HotS, at least to plant the seed.
It looks to me like none of these haters have a leg to stand on. You bring compelling arguments with convincing evidence yet all they can say is "DON'T MAKE US FIGHT THE UI"
All I want are powerful, game changing spells that are actually a treat to watch and execute 
|
Really well written. I agree with a lot of what OP said. I really miss the dynamics of individual micro and it being genuinely important vs casting a bunch of spells and that being the main focus. Not saying that spells can't or shouldn't be a focus point, I'm all for a clutch defensive matrix or godlike series of storms, but I think being able to slip in those spells while devoting a lot of energy to unit movement control should occur instead of static unit movement (1A) with all remaining focus devoted to spamming abilities.
Do players enjoy going A *click and then spending their next 15 clicks on dropping FF while the rest of their units just march up and shoot? Or hitting their mouse 32 times spamming IT vs using that APM to control their units? I'm not saying when and where to throw FF or IT isn't a skill because it is. It just doesn't seem like the skill ceiling is that high relatively speaking. It's like quality has been watered down by quantity.
I remember how excited I felt when I learned and performed muta or vulture micro in BW, it was amazing! I felt like I could dance around killing other units and there was nothing my opponent could do about it. It wasn't easy among everything else that you had to do but it sure was rewarding, especially when you could macro behind something like that. That was pure ecstasy, especially when it was a result of practice. If I was going to use a spell, it was almost like they were something I cast in order to improve the control of my own units (ie cast dark swarm and then run under it towards the enemy) or at least I didn't expect the spell to result in the death of my opponents entire army without significant work on my part. It was utilizing the finite number of spells I had and was able to cast to the best of my ability. Now it seems too easy to kill a disproportionate number of units with the use of spells. The dynamic of acquiring a skill and implementing it doesn't feel quite the same and like OP suggestion, the way spells and casting has been implemented might be hindering the style of gameplay community members are crying out for more than helping.
Terran, for example, has the smallest number of 'useful' spell casting units (eg 250mm cannon or Yamato = not useful). Maybe you have some ghosts or maybe you have some ravens in late game, probably not both and they have quite limited use (snipe and EMP nerfs, time taken for HSM energy). To compensate, Terran has some of the most dynamic unit movement out of all three races since the bulk of their army are attacking units. Splitting and constant movement vs banelings, storm, colossus and fungal is exciting and difficult to do! Protoss, on the other hand, gets a tier 1.5 caster that is often massed and as a result, a lot of the emphasis is placed on use of FF vs controlling unit movement (I realize this occurs in more than these situations, those were examples only).
Some food for thought.
|
I'm guessing this point has been brought up already, but if FF was harder to use than it is now, toss could basically never take a 3rd in ZvP, and immo/sentry would die immediately.
Basically toss is so reliant on FF in the early/midgame that making it harder to use would imbalance the game.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 22 2012 07:18 Defenestrator wrote:
I'm guessing this point has been brought up already, but if FF was harder to use than it is now, toss could basically never take a 3rd in ZvP, and immo/sentry would die immediately.
Basically toss is so reliant on FF in the early/midgame that making it harder to use would imbalance the game.
I think that the basis of the thread is less about balance, and more about the design the game is balanced around.
|
on the general topic falling; how do you find wc3 gameplay re smartcast?
|
Another great read. Falling, you always have solid, quality analysis and every one of your threads thus far has been great.
However, I think smart-casting is not the main reason that spells were nerfed in SC2. It is a reason, for sure but I just think that unit clumping is a much greater reason. You really can't have a "game-changing" storm when a single storm can hit your opponent's entire army. In BW, shit made a huge congo line when moving across the map and even the battles were spread out over large areas. In SC2, everything is more condensed. This is why you can't really have "game-changing" AoE spells because they could kill your whole army. This is one of the reasons fungal is such an issue right now. For other reasons too, but also because of the quantity of shit it can hit.
But, yes, I agree. Smart-casting can definitely be used to "soft-balance" AoE in SC2. But we'll never see it.
|
On November 21 2012 22:10 necrimanci wrote:Always hated smart casting. It makes super fast player's casts the same as an average player's ones. Also good spell control is a way to score a comeback in a game with no smart casting. Plus smart cast makes the game easier, and easier game = volatile tournament scene, where average players actually have a chance against people who put hours into training. Tho, nothing's gonna change. Wanna know why? 1. Slowpoke pros/homegrown pros wont ever support a change like that, no matter how more enjoyable it would make the game, cause they would just drop out 2. SC2 is a mass game. Call of Duty of the RTS world. If it's too hard to play/emulate what pros do, people will bitch and moan edit: would be cool if it was like in DoW2, where players could choose the way they want to cast spells with multiple unit selection - either same unit types would use the same spell at the same time sc1 style, or only the first selected one would use it and players would tab between units for individual casts edit2: Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 15:19 Ryder. wrote:
(...) IMO when you have a group of units and you click to storm once in a single place, it is much more natural and intuitive to only have a single templar drop a storm, instead of all of them storming the same place at the same time, in much the same way as it feels more intuitive to be able to select multiple buildings and have no limit on unit selection (...) *cough* stim *cough* There is stuff that applies to all units selected. They all attack move, they all patrol move, they all move. They all stim, they all siege, they all land. They all drop units, unless you tell them to do it by selecting them individually. But they cant all drop a spell if you order them to? You have ALL of them selected, so ALL of them should proceed to try and execute the action you gave them. That's the most intuitive thing ever, because that's how all the untis already work. :3 Your argument is invalid.
What? Did you even read what I said about intuition? If you select all units to stim then they should all stim because that is what the player wants. I mean the intuitive thing is for them all to stim because that's what the player wants...it makes it easy for the player to do what he wants to do.
Why would any player EVER want to have every templar storm in the same place at the same time?
The UI should facilitate the game doing what the player wants. He is never going to want every templar to storm at the same place at the same time so why would the UI encourage it?
You can make the 'its impressive to see these players land storms knowing how hard it is' argument for anything. I mean hell why let units auto target a new unit after its finished killing the old one? Wouldn't it be much more impressive to make it so you need to individually tell units to retarget after they finish killing the old unit? Then we could all get excited over how amazing these players are ('knowing how hard it is to actually pull off') in that they can manage to individually re-target new units at the same time as having impeccable macro. That would really sort the fast, fluid players from those with poor multi-tasking 'average' wouldn't it?
|
Removing smart-casting is not the way to solve this. The game is inaccessible enough as it is to the casual players, and taking away smart-cast will only serve to drive them further away.
The only way to fix ff/fungal is to replace them with better spells that do not hinder micro and re-balance the races accordingly. Spells like irradiate and dark swarm were awesome because they were both powerful yet allowed the opposing player to use micro to mitigate them.
Forcefield is extremely difficult to tweak as Protoss is so heavily reliant on it because of the "weakness" of the gateway units. Yet because of the warpgate mechanic, buffing gateway units would make all-ins a lot stronger. I'm not a fan of warpgates in general. I believe they are the core of all Protoss's problems and removing them would make it easier to balance Protoss.
|
I think smart-casting is not a problem but rather the uniform-movement, I agree with you here, and the fact that spells don't do what they should be doing. I believe spells should not be mandatory for a race to stay alive though survivable buffs for units like defensive matrix are fine. The sentry is supposed to keep Protoss alive which it does extremely well given big enough numbers and the full attention of the player as is evident in the dreaded immortal-sentry-all-in and a bunch of other situations. Same with Infestors.
In my opinion spells should be the death-ball-breaker. Broodwar has a lot of spells that do exactly this and force a lot of micro on both sides. Company of Heroes does too. If we look at Company of Heroes we'll see that a lot of the abilities, units and directional cover heavily punish death-ball-play (grenades, artillery strikes, mines, tanks being able to run over infantry, flamethrower, bombing/strafe runs, mg nests,...) and encourage multitasking through splitting up your units and flanking the opponent.
Removing forcefield for a unit buff or autoturret-like spell because the terrain should be sacred, changing fungal to have a higher drawback like being a channeled ability which would force focus firing and tweaking existing AoE spells and maybe adding a few more would really help the game. Also positional units would be nice too.
|
I agree that the skill cap should be raised in SC2, but I do not think this (or any reversion to clunky interfaces) is the right way to go about it. Controls are supposed to work as an outlet for the player to translate his/her ideas into the game, not as a hindrance to what he actually wants his/her units to do. Adding difficult controls to raise the skill cap is simply a sloppy way to design a harder game. Instead, the design of the actual game (not its controls) should reward players who are more skilled.
I think there are several reasons for this. First of all, its more fun. While I don't doubt that the people here arguing for the removal of smart-casting sincerely think the game would be more fun without it, I'd have trouble believing they would prefer clicking each HT individually to storm than having smart casting and, say, having an extra battle to manage somewhere. Why? Because while both require additional APM, one is APM that is actually related to playing the game as its intended, while the other is simply an arbitrary hurdle in an attempt to raise the skill cap.
Second of all, it makes for a better viewing experience. If we want viewers, especially those new to Starcraft, to understand how fast players are playing, than APM should be maximally correlated with effects on the viewing screen(effects like, as mentioned before, more multitasking and micro). Disabling smartcasting kills that action to effect-on-screen ratio. If players aren't wasting APM on fighting controls to perform what should be simple tasks, it frees up APM to perform actions that have a more obvious impact on what's showing on the screen, like battling in more locations or awesome micro feats.
Third, and lastly, it comes off as a much less "elitist" approach to solving the problem. I honestly don't think anyone here actually means to be elitist and I know that everyone's intention is here is just to create a better game, but a community that's asking for it's controls to be harder so that the "skill gap" between players is more apparent certainly does not sound inviting to players who are thinking about getting into the game. If eSports is going to grow and be big, we need to come off as a friendlier and more welcoming community than that in my humble opinion.
As for my opinion to solve the problem of the skill gap, I think that most of the solutions that TL already has floating around are good ideas that will achieve the effect that most supporters of removing smart casting seem to want. As for a short list: replacing anti-micro spells like ff and fungal, changing unit clumping mechanics, increasing the incentive to expand past 3-4 mining bases (and thus promoting strategic, positional play, as well as multi-pronged attacks), increasing micro potential of units, nerfing macro mechanics, etc. Of course, its highly unlikely Blizzard will do such a redesign of their game, but a) I'm making a theoretical argument here anyway , and b) I also think (for better or for worse) its highly unlikely Blizzard will revert to BW mechanics as well.
By the way, the argument that says we shouldn't worry about making spells difficult to use because we are "already adding difficulty by putting spells in" is simply not a good argument, and you actually acknowledge the flaw of the argument at the beginning of your own post. Adding more of a good thing (as with your icing example) doesn't always make for a better thing than you started with. As with nearly everything, there is a "goldilocks zone" of how much icing/difficulty/whatever else that makes for an optimal product. If we're already in the right place, in terms of spell difficulty, adding more of it would still be a bad thing. I'm not necessarily saying that we're certainly in that zone right now, or that definitely we shouldn't make spells more difficult to use in some way, but I think you have a further burden of proof (to show us that we aren't in that zone yet) in order for the argument to hold water.
/endrant
|
Canada11258 Posts
On November 22 2012 08:56 zlefin wrote:
on the general topic falling; how do you find wc3 gameplay re smartcast?
To be honest, I couldn't give you a fair shake to that question. I only got the game in the last year in a bargain bin. Some games are easy to determine the quality of the battles after a couple play throughs- and for me this is usually the unit handling (how sluggish they are responding to precise orders.) SupCom2, Empire at War 2, and Battle for MiddleEarth 2 all have this problem. (As well as passive income gathering which eliminates dynamic worker vs harass unit micro.)
WC3 I never felt like played enough to get a handle of it. Obviously there was a competive scene that developed. But WC3 seems a very different animal, balanced around far less units, with more hitpoints, and with special ability heroes as their center-piece. I still maintain, that adding even more spells (in this case, anti-spells) will just further add to the clutter. Except now we have spells that do stuff and spells that undo that stuff. So we have a whole lot of animations going down very fast (due to smart-casting), but even less stuff actually happening as we are now undoing the effects of the first set of spells. It worked in WC3 and I definitely see the direct line between that and MOBA games, but it seems like it would add a lot of clutter to battles that are already pretty heavy in the flashing lights, fireworks, and strobe light department.
On November 22 2012 07:21 Deckkie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 07:18 Defenestrator wrote:
I'm guessing this point has been brought up already, but if FF was harder to use than it is now, toss could basically never take a 3rd in ZvP, and immo/sentry would die immediately.
Basically toss is so reliant on FF in the early/midgame that making it harder to use would imbalance the game. I think that the basis of the thread is less about balance, and more about the design the game is balanced around.
Exactly this. Actually, the added benefit theoretically is that Protoss could be balanced around NOT being so reliant on forcefields. This could potentially allow for more varied maps because you do not need to build maps around Protoss's FF dependency. But we still have warp-gates at Tier 1 so there's a limit too how much gateway units can be buffed.
On November 22 2012 09:40 nonsequitur wrote:
Removing smart-casting is not the way to solve this. The game is inaccessible enough as it is to the casual players, and taking away smart-cast will only serve to drive them further away.
The only way to fix ff/fungal is to replace them with better spells that do not hinder micro and re-balance the races accordingly. Spells like irradiate and dark swarm were awesome because they were both powerful yet allowed the opposing player to use micro to mitigate them.
Forcefield is extremely difficult to tweak as Protoss is so heavily reliant on it because of the "weakness" of the gateway units. Yet because of the warpgate mechanic, buffing gateway units would make all-ins a lot stronger. I'm not a fan of warpgates in general. I believe they are the core of all Protoss's problems and removing them would make it easier to balance Protoss.
As for accessibility. I don't think smart-casting/ no smart-casting is the place to look for bringing in casual players. That goes back to the condition of Battlenet 0.2, the custom map situation, and the current empty feel of Battlenet. There were entire communities of people that just played Fastest Possible or Big Game Hunter. BGH actually became quite skillful and developed its own set of strategies. There was a BGH strategy guide I was going to link, but I couldn't find it it- 2Pacalypse would probably know better.
But all the random UMS and community based, hang-out feel is really what is needed for casuals. Battlenet was built around getting casuals to ladder more often. This was probably the wrong approach- community and fun maps would've been the better focus while keeping the ranked match-up for the more competive people (And actually rank the ladder and show win-loss.) Plus shared replays. C'mon Blizzard
As I said before, Smart-casting actually raises the expectation for the casual to cast even more than they would in BW just to have an equivalent, discernable effect on the battlefield (for damage spells.)
The sort of player that will be thrown off by this sort of thing, in my opinion is going to be the same sort of player that casts one storm on a group of roaches, sees the paltry damage it does and thinks "that sucks." Then you tell them, "you need to cover the screen with storms. They won't actually kill many units outright. But they'll all be damaged somewhat and that's good." And at that point, they're going to just switch to Collosus.
It's just not a very exciting spell when it gets diluted so much. And now you're supposed cast a whole ton of them.
And FF and Fungal is just frustrating to play against no matter what rank you are. They are just far too prevalent in locking down army movement.
|
Canada11258 Posts
First of all, nice first post. I wish more first time posters were as thoughtful.
On November 22 2012 11:35 mozoku wrote:
I agree that the skill cap should be raised in SC2, but I do not think this (or any reversion to clunky interfaces) is the right way to go about it. Controls are supposed to work as an outlet for the player to translate his/her ideas into the game, not as a hindrance to what he actually wants his/her units to do. Adding difficult controls to raise the skill cap is simply a sloppy way to design a harder game. Instead, the design of the actual game (not its controls) should reward players who are more skilled.
Well what exactly are your ideas that you want translated into the game? What if my idea I want translated into the game is to take three casters, spread them out and storm at the exact same time? SC2 is a hinderance to that. It literally disallows this action.
Or is it more broad? You want your units to attack a certain place on the map. We simply by adding spell-casters into the game, we have added more difficult controls to rais the skill cap. All the other units move to location and fight upon arrival. Casters insist on doing nothing until you tell them to do something. This is much harder.
On November 22 2012 11:35 mozoku wrote:
I think there are several reasons for this. First of all, its more fun. While I don't doubt that the people here arguing for the removal of smart-casting sincerely think the game would be more fun without it, I'd have trouble believing they would prefer clicking each HT individually to storm than having smart casting and, say, having an extra battle to manage somewhere. Why? Because while both require additional APM, one is APM that is actually related to playing the game as its intended, while the other is simply an arbitrary hurdle in an attempt to raise the skill cap.
What are you saving your APM for? We saved the APM with MBS and the like-- so that we could have more time for things like casting. Better casting is the thing we want to spend apm on. And now we have more time to do it. (Well actually we don't if we're Zerg because of larvae injects and creep spread, but anyways.) If keep the old method of casting, our spells are awesomely powered and we have more time to do it. But instead the spells get diluted.
On November 22 2012 11:35 mozoku wrote:
Second of all, it makes for a better viewing experience. If we want viewers, especially those new to Starcraft, to understand how fast players are playing, than APM should be maximally correlated with effects on the viewing screen(effects like, as mentioned before, more multitasking and micro). Disabling smartcasting kills that action to effect-on-screen ratio. If players aren't wasting APM on fighting controls to perform what should be simple tasks, it frees up APM to perform actions that have a more obvious impact on what's showing on the screen, like battling in more locations or awesome micro feats.
There's a couple assumptions here. First, should casting be simple? This isn't necessarily the case. And a large scope of my OP was arguing why it should not be simple. It negatively impacts the gameplay when it is simple. Second does APM correlation actually hinder viewing experience? I argue too many spells hinders viewing experience- look at WoW battle arena and MOBA team fights. Also, when you see old style casting- given how rare a Jangbi storm is. It's pretty obvious that he's going pretty fast.
When a high number of spells cast is rare, it demonstrates how fast a person is going because it is rare. A high number of spells cast all the time makes it not a big deal and I think there is less of appreciation for what's going on. Why do the Koreans scream over plaguuu and stormuu while Team Liquid moans about casters calling 'amazing fungal'? You do see "fungal, fungal, fungal, fungal" posted but they aren't typically posting because they are excited.
On November 22 2012 11:35 mozoku wrote:
Third, and lastly, it comes off as a much less "elitist" approach to solving the problem. I honestly don't think anyone here actually means to be elitist and I know that everyone's intention is here is just to create a better game, but a community that's asking for it's controls to be harder so that the "skill gap" between players is more apparent certainly does not sound inviting to players who are thinking about getting into the game. If eSports is going to grow and be big, we need to come off as a friendlier and more welcoming community than that in my humble opinion.
To me this is better solved by Battlenet, then by trying to appeal to casuals to the detriment of our pro-scene. Besides, powerful spells are fun to play even if it is hard to do many of them. One storm that melts a portion of the Zerg army is fun. And it's the hook for learning to do more. A 'meh' spell that you have to do a whole bunch is more of a chore in my opinion then an AWESOME spell that it's a little harder to do.
I do agree there are a lot of things that could be looked at to help the game. I think this is one of them.
On November 22 2012 11:35 mozoku wrote:
Adding more of a good thing (as with your icing example) doesn't always make for a better thing than you started with. As with nearly everything, there is a "goldilocks zone" of how much icing/difficulty/whatever else that makes for an optimal product. If we're already in the right place, in terms of spell difficulty, adding more of it would still be a bad thing. I'm not necessarily saying that we're certainly in that zone right now, or that definitely we shouldn't make spells more difficult to use in some way, but I think you have a further burden of proof (to show us that we aren't in that zone yet) in order for the argument to hold water.
True to some extent, but who knows where the right place is for spell difficulty? It's all about design choice. But that's rather what the rest of my post is about. Yes, this will make it harder. But here are all the benefits. In my opinion, there are so many that it far outweighs the small sacrifice of in the case of clone casting- two extra clicks (assuming shift-click, smart-casting)
And actually magic-box casting is less clicks than smart-casting... who is fighting the interface now??? 
|
As much as removing smart cast would increase skill cap for this game, on the other hand it would discourage casual players from ever picking it up.
I think the latter is more damaging to the scene than the benefits of the first, therefore this would not be an optimal solution.
Furthermore, there is basically a 0% chance that Blizzard would ever actually implement this kind of change seeing their philosophy for SC2 so far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
