|
On November 22 2012 12:42 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 01:53 Lightspeaker wrote:On November 21 2012 23:21 Anomek wrote:
You can't base competetive game mostly on brilliant strategies. It makes for stale, boring game.
...
Also look at other sports. Every sport require a lot of phisical abilities, and they are what makes difference between pros and amateurs. Even ones that require a lot of thinking and planning (snooker come to my mind) also requires executions, and execution in addition to strategy is what makes for most exciting moments.
Do people even read what they are saying here? Two of the most classic strategy games ever: Chess and Go. Clearly one-dimensional and stale games there because you only have to "micro" one piece at a time and because you don't have to stand on your head to make the pieces do what you intend them to do. Right? Out-thinking the opponent is so overrated. I'm not trying to say that they are in any way indicative of SC2, but please stop with the constant sweeping comments about how things are this way or that way as if its some kind of universal truth. There's a lot of it going around lately and its utter garbage. Focus on SC2 because most generalised comments are just not going to work. And how many people watch pro go and pro chess compared to pro-football? BW = Football SC2 = Chess a.k.a not that fun to watch If you guys want chess then that's fine, but just realise that SC2 will die as an esport trying to become that. Note that there is still a shitload of strategy in football, so hardcore spectators can admire it, but the amateurs can still really enjoy it too without having to understand the management aspect. Analogous to BW.
People seriously need to learn that game mechanics was one of the last reasons that BW became popular as an eSport. BW was in a perfect storm situation where there was simply no other alternative, and Korea as a nation became obsessed with it.
Making SC2 like BW will not create instant viewers.
|
Wow, this is probably the best read I have ever seen on TL. Major props to OP.
|
On November 22 2012 23:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 12:42 sluggaslamoo wrote:On November 22 2012 01:53 Lightspeaker wrote:On November 21 2012 23:21 Anomek wrote:
You can't base competetive game mostly on brilliant strategies. It makes for stale, boring game.
...
Also look at other sports. Every sport require a lot of phisical abilities, and they are what makes difference between pros and amateurs. Even ones that require a lot of thinking and planning (snooker come to my mind) also requires executions, and execution in addition to strategy is what makes for most exciting moments.
Do people even read what they are saying here? Two of the most classic strategy games ever: Chess and Go. Clearly one-dimensional and stale games there because you only have to "micro" one piece at a time and because you don't have to stand on your head to make the pieces do what you intend them to do. Right? Out-thinking the opponent is so overrated. I'm not trying to say that they are in any way indicative of SC2, but please stop with the constant sweeping comments about how things are this way or that way as if its some kind of universal truth. There's a lot of it going around lately and its utter garbage. Focus on SC2 because most generalised comments are just not going to work. And how many people watch pro go and pro chess compared to pro-football? BW = Football SC2 = Chess a.k.a not that fun to watch If you guys want chess then that's fine, but just realise that SC2 will die as an esport trying to become that. Note that there is still a shitload of strategy in football, so hardcore spectators can admire it, but the amateurs can still really enjoy it too without having to understand the management aspect. Analogous to BW. People seriously need to learn that game mechanics was one of the last reasons that BW became popular as an eSport. BW was in a perfect storm situation where there was simply no other alternative, and Korea as a nation became obsessed with it. Making SC2 like BW will not create instant viewers.
that downplays a lot of BW strengths that makes it appeal to viewers. BW's unit voices were good, units were distinctive, units less cluttered, action everywhere...
|
On November 23 2012 00:04 shadymmj wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 23:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 22 2012 12:42 sluggaslamoo wrote:On November 22 2012 01:53 Lightspeaker wrote:On November 21 2012 23:21 Anomek wrote:
You can't base competetive game mostly on brilliant strategies. It makes for stale, boring game.
...
Also look at other sports. Every sport require a lot of phisical abilities, and they are what makes difference between pros and amateurs. Even ones that require a lot of thinking and planning (snooker come to my mind) also requires executions, and execution in addition to strategy is what makes for most exciting moments.
Do people even read what they are saying here? Two of the most classic strategy games ever: Chess and Go. Clearly one-dimensional and stale games there because you only have to "micro" one piece at a time and because you don't have to stand on your head to make the pieces do what you intend them to do. Right? Out-thinking the opponent is so overrated. I'm not trying to say that they are in any way indicative of SC2, but please stop with the constant sweeping comments about how things are this way or that way as if its some kind of universal truth. There's a lot of it going around lately and its utter garbage. Focus on SC2 because most generalised comments are just not going to work. And how many people watch pro go and pro chess compared to pro-football? BW = Football SC2 = Chess a.k.a not that fun to watch If you guys want chess then that's fine, but just realise that SC2 will die as an esport trying to become that. Note that there is still a shitload of strategy in football, so hardcore spectators can admire it, but the amateurs can still really enjoy it too without having to understand the management aspect. Analogous to BW. People seriously need to learn that game mechanics was one of the last reasons that BW became popular as an eSport. BW was in a perfect storm situation where there was simply no other alternative, and Korea as a nation became obsessed with it. Making SC2 like BW will not create instant viewers. that downplays a lot of BW strengths that makes it appeal to viewers. BW's unit voices were good, units were distinctive, units less cluttered, action everywhere...
No, he is right. BW hit at a literally perfect moment. That is a fact, and completely unarguable. Too many factors came together to make BW as big as it was.
|
On November 23 2012 00:08 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 00:04 shadymmj wrote:On November 22 2012 23:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 22 2012 12:42 sluggaslamoo wrote:On November 22 2012 01:53 Lightspeaker wrote:On November 21 2012 23:21 Anomek wrote:
You can't base competetive game mostly on brilliant strategies. It makes for stale, boring game.
...
Also look at other sports. Every sport require a lot of phisical abilities, and they are what makes difference between pros and amateurs. Even ones that require a lot of thinking and planning (snooker come to my mind) also requires executions, and execution in addition to strategy is what makes for most exciting moments.
Do people even read what they are saying here? Two of the most classic strategy games ever: Chess and Go. Clearly one-dimensional and stale games there because you only have to "micro" one piece at a time and because you don't have to stand on your head to make the pieces do what you intend them to do. Right? Out-thinking the opponent is so overrated. I'm not trying to say that they are in any way indicative of SC2, but please stop with the constant sweeping comments about how things are this way or that way as if its some kind of universal truth. There's a lot of it going around lately and its utter garbage. Focus on SC2 because most generalised comments are just not going to work. And how many people watch pro go and pro chess compared to pro-football? BW = Football SC2 = Chess a.k.a not that fun to watch If you guys want chess then that's fine, but just realise that SC2 will die as an esport trying to become that. Note that there is still a shitload of strategy in football, so hardcore spectators can admire it, but the amateurs can still really enjoy it too without having to understand the management aspect. Analogous to BW. People seriously need to learn that game mechanics was one of the last reasons that BW became popular as an eSport. BW was in a perfect storm situation where there was simply no other alternative, and Korea as a nation became obsessed with it. Making SC2 like BW will not create instant viewers. that downplays a lot of BW strengths that makes it appeal to viewers. BW's unit voices were good, units were distinctive, units less cluttered, action everywhere... No, he is right. BW hit at a literally perfect moment. That is a fact, and completely unarguable. Too many factors came together to make BW as big as it was.
Probably true, yet, that doesn't explain how it survived for 14 years after the fact when so many newer RTS games were coming out.
|
|
|
Canada11258 Posts
On November 22 2012 22:32 Waxangel wrote:
I dislike how your posts have gone from interesting to forced BW > SC2 diatribes
Where do you think I jumped the shark? Because in my mind, these articles have all been born out of the same thing. What are some current issues in SC2. Either that other people are complaining about or that nobody is really expressing. And then what can be learned from BW. FF/Fungal has been complained about for some time, but has been increasing in the last couple months. So people perceive a problem.
But often in debates, other people immediately point to stasis and Ensare as though they were present to the same extent.
My mech play blog relied very heavily on using BW to explain what mech play was because I felt people did not really understand what it was and bio-play in another skin was getting passed off as 'mech.' But it was very much: this is the current design and its implications. Here are possible changes and its implications.
On November 22 2012 18:40 Integra wrote:
This post is, if a very well written one, still a "let's dumb down the controls/ui interface". The problem is with Force fields, fungals and warpin mechanics and they are bad game design. I don't even understand how you (even after reading this) can relate this to smart casting. It only makes sense if you for some reason before hand thought that Smart casting was bad.
This could very well be. The tech might be too low, just plain bad for the game. Any number of things. But it imight simply be because it is too easy. People like to point out the existence of Stasis, Ensare, Lockdown, and Maelstrom. But the lack of smart-casting is one of the things that keeps theses abilities in check.
|
wow great post :D i miss bw after reading this post
|
This could very well be. The tech might be too low, just plain bad for the game. Any number of things. But it imight simply be because it is too easy. People like to point out the existence of Stasis, Ensare, Lockdown, and Maelstrom. But the lack of smart-casting is one of the things that keeps theses abilities in check.
Maybe. But when you look at the spells and the costs of the units, there is a simpler reason: costs and versatility.
Maelstrom only affects biological units (so the usage would be limited to PvZ mostly). You need to research it, the dark archon costs 250 minerals, 200 gas and 4 supply. It has no auto-attack and feedback and mind control are very situational. You need to decide when it is really worth it to use this unit.
Stasis: The arbiter costs 350 gas, this limits the usage of this unit automatically until you get many gas bases. Stasis deals prevents damage dealt, so you need to use the ability intelligently. The cloaking ability does not stack, so the use of more arbiters decreases with the numbers of arbiters present. Arbiters used for recall do not have the energy for stasis available (at least not immediately, except it has full energy with upgrade), so you need to decide for what you use your arbiters.
Lockdown and Ensnare have a big downside (single target and only slowing ability) that limits its usage. I would say these are much bigger factors than smartcasting.
|
Great thread, really well put and structured by the OP. I think smartcast is a problem aswell and the game would be so much better without it in every way, and this can be changed. The thing that really ruined SC2 to me was that units clump so much and so the aoe destroys them. If the aoe had a smaller radius or the units clumped less the game would still be more enjoyable to watch even with smartcast. Anyway I hope this reaches Blizzard attention as it has been one of the most constructive threads I've seen so far.
|
On November 23 2012 01:51 aTnClouD wrote:
Great thread, really well put and structured by the OP. I think smartcast is a problem aswell and the game would be so much better without it in every way, and this can be changed. The thing that really ruined SC2 to me was that units clump so much and so the aoe destroys them. If the aoe had a smaller radius or the units clumped less the game would still be more enjoyable to watch even with smartcast. Anyway I hope this reaches Blizzard attention as it has been one of the most constructive threads I've seen so far.
Agreed, but if something like this is to reach Blizzard's attention it's going to take more than just a TL thread, however detailed and well thought out.
|
On November 23 2012 01:51 aTnClouD wrote:
Great thread, really well put and structured by the OP. I think smartcast is a problem aswell and the game would be so much better without it in every way, and this can be changed. The thing that really ruined SC2 to me was that units clump so much and so the aoe destroys them. If the aoe had a smaller radius or the units clumped less the game would still be more enjoyable to watch even with smartcast. Anyway I hope this reaches Blizzard attention as it has been one of the most constructive threads I've seen so far.
Well I agree increasing collision radius would actually improve the game. I even made a thread about it back in the beta both here (got like 95% approval rate) and on b.net forums. But arguing smartcasting to be shut down is just pointless, it would never happen. The only way to get it back is to make a pro-mod of sc2.
|
I have never played a game without smart-casting (WC3 and SC2 are my two big rts games), but it sounds like a good idea and I definately like the idea of storm being buffed so I can actually defend against drops without leaving Stalker armadas to deal with medivacs. However shouldn't it apply to all casting units and spells (ie. snipe, infested terrans, EMP, etc), with the problems this introduce*. As a minimum EMP should also lose smart-casting, it is AOE damage against protoss (quite sick AOE if you look at the numbers :o)
*
Obvious problem 1:
Sniping 10 times with one click on a marine in low leagues to waste all ghost energy.
Sniping 10 times with one click on a blord in high league to kill said blord quickly.
Obvious problem 2:
Infested terrans can be spawned even faster if all infestors throw one egg per click. Currently I can only beat IT busts because my opponents fail to throw all eggs at the same time.
Problem 3:
|
On November 23 2012 00:13 neobowman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 00:08 superstartran wrote:On November 23 2012 00:04 shadymmj wrote:On November 22 2012 23:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 22 2012 12:42 sluggaslamoo wrote:On November 22 2012 01:53 Lightspeaker wrote:On November 21 2012 23:21 Anomek wrote:
You can't base competetive game mostly on brilliant strategies. It makes for stale, boring game.
...
Also look at other sports. Every sport require a lot of phisical abilities, and they are what makes difference between pros and amateurs. Even ones that require a lot of thinking and planning (snooker come to my mind) also requires executions, and execution in addition to strategy is what makes for most exciting moments.
Do people even read what they are saying here? Two of the most classic strategy games ever: Chess and Go. Clearly one-dimensional and stale games there because you only have to "micro" one piece at a time and because you don't have to stand on your head to make the pieces do what you intend them to do. Right? Out-thinking the opponent is so overrated. I'm not trying to say that they are in any way indicative of SC2, but please stop with the constant sweeping comments about how things are this way or that way as if its some kind of universal truth. There's a lot of it going around lately and its utter garbage. Focus on SC2 because most generalised comments are just not going to work. And how many people watch pro go and pro chess compared to pro-football? BW = Football SC2 = Chess a.k.a not that fun to watch If you guys want chess then that's fine, but just realise that SC2 will die as an esport trying to become that. Note that there is still a shitload of strategy in football, so hardcore spectators can admire it, but the amateurs can still really enjoy it too without having to understand the management aspect. Analogous to BW. People seriously need to learn that game mechanics was one of the last reasons that BW became popular as an eSport. BW was in a perfect storm situation where there was simply no other alternative, and Korea as a nation became obsessed with it. Making SC2 like BW will not create instant viewers. that downplays a lot of BW strengths that makes it appeal to viewers. BW's unit voices were good, units were distinctive, units less cluttered, action everywhere... No, he is right. BW hit at a literally perfect moment. That is a fact, and completely unarguable. Too many factors came together to make BW as big as it was. Probably true, yet, that doesn't explain how it survived for 14 years after the fact when so many newer RTS games were coming out.
It's called momentum. There are various games that are actually much more entertaining to watch than SC:BW from a casual standpoint (for example, CoH 2v2 is fucking non-stop action from like minute 1), or have vastly different mechanics that I thought were actually better (as did many others), however SC:BW remained on top due to both being a good game, and having hit the correct timing. AoE 2 in alot of respects is actually extremely competitive, and was right up there with BW, but never got anywhere because it didn't hit the correct timing window.
The problem with removing smartcasting is that Dustin Browder and co. would say that removing smart casting would be a step backwards for the casual community. And unfourtanately, I'm almost 100% positive that no matter what the pro community says, it's not going to be removed.
|
Could you maybe talk a little more about how the new units and balance-changes in HotS and the change or lack thereof they will have in terms of improving the game mechanics?
|
Spells are prevalent in most of today's popular multiplayer games. Having an abundance of spells doesn't necessarily make the game easier, or more difficult to watch*. I agree with spells and spellcasters being for too important in SC2. They should not be the backbone of an army (like the Infestor). Spellcasters in RTS games should be support units.
Change the AoE, change the supply costs, whatever. Just make it clear that having too many of a particular spellcaster has diminishing returns. I don't think that will be fixed by changing smart casting, and I know Blizzard will not change the way casting functions in SC2.
*BW's spells were not as intuitive to understand as you make them out to be. No casual viewer could ever watch a game and understand what Dark Swarm or many other spells were. Now, having more spells may be difficult for casual viewers to understand when watching, but that ultimately depends on the design, animation, and effect of the spell. There will always be things that non-player spectators will not understand, but the game should not be designed to cater to them.
|
After reading much debate I have come to the conclusion that only one option (I have several in mind) can satisfy both the casual and pro scene. There has to be a "mode type" -- Beginner Mode -- which is the current state of the game that allows autocasting, selecting all your units and buildings under one hotkey, etc and -- Pro Mode -- which will have the same set up as Brood War, where everything is manually done. Such as 12 units per hotkey, no autocast, no selecting all your buildings at once, etc. Tournaments will use "Pro Mode". The way to divide the modes on ladder will be --There will be divisions all the way up to Grand Master with the Beginner Mode set up and divisions up to Grand Master with the Pro Mode set up. That way the Beginner Mode player won't have the advantage against the Pro Mode player. BM (Beginner Mode) players will only play BM players and PM (Pro Mode) players will only play PM players. The mode their using will show up next to the which ladder season they use it. In my opinion this is the only logical way to satisfy both groups of players. It gives both groups the option of how they would like to play the game. You can have casual tournaments and pro tournaments -- all depending on which mode you use.
|
On November 23 2012 04:03 Analytical Genius wrote:
After reading much debate I have come to the conclusion that only one option (I have several in mind) can satisfy both the casual and pro scene. There has to be a "mode type" -- Beginner Mode -- which is the current state of the game that allows autocasting, selecting all your units and buildings under one hotkey, etc and -- Pro Mode -- which will have the same set up as Brood War, where everything is manually done. Such as 12 units per hotkey, no autocast, no selecting all your buildings at once, etc. Tournaments will use "Pro Mode". The way to divide the modes on ladder will be --There will be divisions all the way up to Grand Master with the Beginner Mode set up and divisions up to Grand Master with the Pro Mode set up. That way the Beginner Mode player won't have the advantage against the Pro Mode player. BM (Beginner Mode) players will only play BM players and PM (Pro Mode) players will only play PM players. The mode their using will show up next to the which ladder season they use it. In my opinion this is the only logical way to satisfy both groups of players. It gives both groups the option of how they would like to play the game. You can have casual tournaments and pro tournaments -- all depending on which mode you use.
I agree with this and was thinking something very similar. I don't see any reason this shouldn't be implemented.
|
On November 23 2012 04:03 Analytical Genius wrote:
After reading much debate I have come to the conclusion that only one option (I have several in mind) can satisfy both the casual and pro scene. There has to be a "mode type" -- Beginner Mode -- which is the current state of the game that allows autocasting, selecting all your units and buildings under one hotkey, etc and -- Pro Mode -- which will have the same set up as Brood War, where everything is manually done. Such as 12 units per hotkey, no autocast, no selecting all your buildings at once, etc. Tournaments will use "Pro Mode". The way to divide the modes on ladder will be --There will be divisions all the way up to Grand Master with the Beginner Mode set up and divisions up to Grand Master with the Pro Mode set up. That way the Beginner Mode player won't have the advantage against the Pro Mode player. BM (Beginner Mode) players will only play BM players and PM (Pro Mode) players will only play PM players. The mode their using will show up next to the which ladder season they use it. In my opinion this is the only logical way to satisfy both groups of players. It gives both groups the option of how they would like to play the game. You can have casual tournaments and pro tournaments -- all depending on which mode you use.
I've done a lot of thinking about this particular proposal... and at the end of it all, I concluded that its not a very good idea.
One of the things that awesome about golf, is that I can grab my sticks and go out and play the exact same game that the pros play, but I shoot 85 from a short tee and they shoot 65 from the tips. I can really appreciate how incredible their accomplishments are because I'm playing by the same rules, swinging the same stick at the same ball over the same grass.... I just know I'll never, EVER be as superhuman as they are. Same for every other game, pretty much.
I can more easily appreciate what pro gamers are able to do because I have all the same exact buttons to push and I can't push them like they do. I don't think its good for esport to change the rules at the pro level. In addition, how the hell can anyone ever progress to that level if there is some new, awful, learning curve going from amateur to pro?
Also, even assuming your premise wasn't something I disagreed with, your cutoff is horrible. There are CODE S players who are not GM on KR. They're stuck at rank 1 masters or whatever. Any change you implement for pro play MUST effect master league, as there are always some pros there, and some top level amateurs as well. Also, as a top 8 masters player, I very much do not want a different game than the one played at the pro level.
On November 23 2012 04:20 Seldentar wrote:
I agree with this and was thinking something very similar. I don't see any reason this shouldn't be implemented.
The same reason that MANY diamond/platinum/ and even gold league players got insulted and angry when you took away their losses on the ladder stats page. Some of us play the game BECAUSE we want to play a challenging game where we are working to emulate the miraculous feats at the pro level. If you make the game different for the masses, then there will be out-cry. That's just not what starcraft is about. One set of rules for everyone.
|
This is the only good analysis of smartcasting I've ever read. You are right on the mark this time; nice work falling. I'd be really interested in trying SC2 without smartcasting to see what it feels like. Obviously you'd have to buff some things here and there to make it balanced but it'd still be interesting to try right out of the box.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
