|
On November 10 2013 02:21 Captain Peabody wrote:
Micro like this is actually probably one of the most clearly visible and intuitive forms of micro. Having a flashy spell effect that you have no idea as a viewer what it's doing is often quite difficult to understand; see most Dota style games, etc. Seeing a progamer move his units really well is something that is pretty darn obvious and intuitive to grasp.
I like this kind of criticism. It seems to me that several Starcraft II units do have "micro buttons" like the Medivac or the Void Ray. And I do agree that "moving a unit better" is a very elegant way to show micro, say, like Marine stuttersteps, or Vulture "shots-halfway-while-turning". In comparison "Micro buttons" feel slightly more like clutter.
Is it possible, though, that "micro buttons" are needed when you implement better pathfinding?
I mean, if not microed units do 90% of what microed units do, it makes sense to focus on other things. If they do 10%, then you had better micro like mad.
Is it possible that "elegant micro", the kind of micro that just relies on moving units better, only makes sense when pathfinding is bad? Are there ways to implement -really relevant- elegant micro on a game with good pathfinding? Or is the only solution to "just have bad pathfinding"? Even Lalush himself [1] says that the ideas on his video wouldn't change the game that fundamentally...
I'm stumped on that one, honestly.
[1] Lalush: If the title of this topic would have read: "gameplay would not be noticeably affected by Lalush's changes", I'd be inclined to agree. http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/1q7g4q/david_kim_comments_on_the_depth_of_micro_video/
|
From that link:
#4 StarCraft 2
Many people won’t consider this title one of “the best” RTS games ever made, let alone worthy of the #4 spot on a top 10 list. It’s an incremental improvement over a solid formula, and subjectively lacking in what many would consider to be “advanced” features for an RTS game. But that’s not why it’s seated in the top 10 of all time when arguably more feature-rich games like Warhammer: Dawn of War 2 aren’t. StarCraft 2 is the most played and most recognizable RTS experience ever to be conceived. Let’s not kid ourselves here. With roughly 750,000 people logged into battle.net at any given time even almost 2 years after its launch, StarCraft 2 probably has a population that totals more than all other games in the list combined. To a greater or lesser extent, this game has defined what it means to be popular in the real-time strategy genre, much as World of WarCraft has done in the MMORPG genre. This game, like its predecessor, will make ripples in this genre for decades, and that’s not to be sneered at, even if this franchise isn’t up your alley.
What does that even mean? What advanced RTS features is the game lacking? And does the game really have a negative reputation?
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
What does that even mean? What advanced RTS features is the game lacking? And does the game really have a negative reputation?
I suppose it means it is not WH40k:DoW 2 or Total Annihilation. Oh wait, it put Company of Heroes on 1st place. What is this!? Disregard any kind of such thing :D
|
On November 10 2013 02:39 vjcamarena wrote:
Is it possible that "elegant micro", the kind of micro that just relies on moving units better, only makes sense when pathfinding is bad? Are there ways to implement -really relevant- elegant micro on a game with good pathfinding? Or is the only solution to "just have bad pahfinding"? Even Lalush himself [1] says that the ideas on his video wouldn't change the game that fundamentally...
No, there are plenty of units, in SC2 even, with good micro interactions that don't relying on just pressing buttons, ling surrounds, splits and bunching of any kind, kiting of any kind (not just MM stutter step but stalker vs marine, banshee vs marine etc), target fire both of priority targets and to maximize the effect of abilities of damage (concussive), managing units of different speeds and ranges (zealots in front of stalkers etc), lining up hellion aoe, you might even add loading and unloading into transports to that list.
The important point from Blizzard's perspective is that if something does something that's not consistent with the way the unit works then active and passive abilities are a decent way to surface that to the player in a way that makes sense, unlike say patrol micro which lets you bypass the turning speed of the unit through a clever exploitation of the game mechanic.
|
So they are going through with the widow mine nerf I guess. Was still in there last time I saw the proposed changes.
|
I don't understand why David Kim would say that it is difficult to see the micro involved in the "Depth of Micro" video... It's pretty obvious who can show more skill and it isn't that difficult to understand. It's like saying that the vast majority of starcraft fans are incapable of understanding something that can be explained T.T" I really hope that he reconsiders and implements the changes because it would definitely raise the skill ceiling for competitive play.
|
On November 10 2013 03:09 Intricate wrote:
I don't understand why David Kim would say that it is difficult to see the micro involved in the "Depth of Micro" video... It's pretty obvious who can show more skill and it isn't that difficult to understand. It's like saying that the vast majority of starcraft fans are incapable of understanding something that can be explained T.T" I really hope that he reconsiders and implements the changes because it would definitely raise the skill ceiling for competitive play.
Well it did take a 15 minute video to explain how the micro worked and why is was so impressive. I watched SC2 with some friends who don't play last night and they were impressed with blink stalker micro and muta's hunting down medivacs. I don't think they would have been noticeably more impressed if the micro was like it was in BW.
|
On November 10 2013 02:35 Dingobloo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2013 01:40 ScoutWBF wrote:On November 10 2013 01:13 vjcamarena wrote:
It goes against one of the core eSports principles ("Everything someone does has to be clearly visible").
Wall of text incoming. Then tell me why games with bugs or glitches are the ones most popular? If you take fighting games, old Street Fighter games had several bugs that were appreciated by the community (Capcom vs SNK2: Roll cancel, Alpha 3: Crouch Cancel). Even Street Fighter 4 is filled with Option selects that cover several situations (If opponent back dashs, you sweep, if he blocks, you throw him). Nobody sees players inputting those option selects or using some of the bugs and the viewer just thinks "How is he doing that?! That guy is super skilled!" Imo game breaking bugs are not bad, as long as they are entertaining. I mean, the best example for RTS is Broodwar with all its control bugs (stop lurker, stack Zerg ground units). Not everything needs to be visible. Sometimes it's better that it's not visible, as that leads to tension and exitement for the viewer. On the topic of options selects I say they're almost the exact situation that Blizzard is attempting to avoid, as a player, they're great they help you bypass some of the inherent coin flip nature of certain situations in fighting games, they're difficult to uncover and skillful to execute but as a spectator they're almost indistinguishable from a guess to someone watching unless you have a high enough knowledge of the game, the match up, and the player to some extent. Even from personal experience playing and watching a fair amount of fighting games I definitely can't pick an option select unless I have prior knowledge that it exists. This I think is where David Kim and the community diverge in their views, bugs and micro tricks like option selects and patrol micro very clearly add depth to the game, so for the community that's seen as a undeniably a good thing, but they do so by adding edge and special cases sometimes to the point of being imperceptible or often contradictory to the way the game usually works, this funnily enough is also why they're seen as interesting. The difficulty for the design team is to make things that are designed, and that work in a consistent and visual, understandable manner that seem equally game changing and game breaking, they want depth by building a larger number of interactions on top of each other that all work consistently and are represented visually, not just depth through complexity. LaLush's video is unfortunately takes a long time to get to the parts that actually are useful. The built in wind up on air unit shots, the spreading before firing priorities and turret bugs to me are all no-brainers to me as they're all consistent with this philosophy and are just good for game responsiveness (though that would require re-balancing, especially for vikings). This is the stuff that should have been put up front on the video and been like "these are bugs and should be fixed". Stuff like patrol micro (which I think is what David Kim is addressing) and the behaviour of hovering units I don't think are making a come back and I think lumping them all together is what has made this mis-communication happen in the first place. I also got down voted for this on reddit but the video really didn't need 30 minutes of BW micro highlight videos pasted on the end of it, you have to respect the time of the people watching it to get your point across. TLDR: Buggy games are held in high regard because they're time tested, mature and cannot be fixed, LaLushes video is good, but covers a lot of ground and should really be more focused, some of it is useful, and some of it is completely against the the design philosophy of SC2 and will likely never be implemented despite how much depth it adds because it does so through complexity. David Kim is addressing the latter without addressing the former which is source of the mis-communication but the video also has to shoulder some of the burden for being rambling and long winded.
I really liked this post. Thanks. It explicated a few things I had begun to think about and also gave me new things to think about.
You are also spot on with regards to the presentation of Lalush's video. I said, at the time, recommended in fact, that he consider doing a NoNy (e.g. when he did his Carrier micro clip) on the video, and also cut out the long BW segment at the end (what point did this serve other than playing to the gallery - a segment of the gallery, in fact?). This did not happen. Even better would have been to cut down the themes, the SC2 bug and micro specific themes, into focused bite-sized chunks of say 3 - 5 minutes each and to maybe even have these as separate videos. DK's response (to a maybe vague question) is disappointing, but I can see where he is coming from. Moreover, he does not seem to imply that more micro opportunity in SC2 is not forthcoming. Rather, that micro opportunities of the kind (poorly argued for) in the video are not likely to be forthcoming.
|
The essence of Lalush's video was the brood war micro footage.
What happens is that people presumably dislike brood war being mentioned, so since they can't actually argue with Lalush's points, because the subject matter is somewhat complicated, instead they go troll on forums with fake concern about "disregard for viewer's time" or "divisive framing of the subject matter" as if they are neutral arbiters speaking objectively about the situation. As if anyone at Blizzard should care about the delivery of the message, if anyone at Blizzard couldn't take the video seriously because of the framing or whatever then they don't deserve their job.
|
On November 10 2013 03:26 Grumbels wrote:
The essence of Lalush's video was the brood war micro footage.
What happens is that people presumably dislike brood war being mentioned, so since they can't actually argue with Lalush's points, because the subject matter is somewhat complicated, instead they go troll on forums with fake concern about "disregard for viewer's time" or "divisive framing of the subject matter" as if they are neutral arbiters speaking objectively about the situation. As if anyone at Blizzard should care about the delivery of the message, if anyone at Blizzard couldn't take the video seriously because of the framing or whatever then they don't deserve their job.
This is one of the most stupid things I have ever read. If you want to get your point across, you tailor it to the people you try to convince. Especially given the long history of BW v SC2 (ever since the release of SC2), it is especially important that your point does not become BW had it, so SC2 should have it too. Even more so when you are talking to the SC2 development team. You can beat a guy over the head with your point or persuade him with honey. If the person you are trying to convince is in the position of decision, honey is better, everytime. You put aside your ego and the strength of your point (which may not be as strong as you think it is anyway) and try to win your point by persuading not bludgeoning. The world works this way.
|
On November 10 2013 03:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2013 03:09 Intricate wrote:
I don't understand why David Kim would say that it is difficult to see the micro involved in the "Depth of Micro" video... It's pretty obvious who can show more skill and it isn't that difficult to understand. It's like saying that the vast majority of starcraft fans are incapable of understanding something that can be explained T.T" I really hope that he reconsiders and implements the changes because it would definitely raise the skill ceiling for competitive play. Well it did take a 15 minute video to explain how the micro worked and why is was so impressive. I watched SC2 with some friends who don't play last night and they were impressed with blink stalker micro and muta's hunting down medivacs. I don't think they would have been noticeably more impressed if the micro was like it was in BW.
So it took you 15 minutes to understand that a sc2 viking must stop before it shoots, but with a few tweaks in engine parameters it doesn't need to stop to shoot? Do you understand the difference between 'seeing the difference at a glance' and 'delving into the mechanics/code that makes it all happen'?
It's ok to be a fanboy, it's ok not to like proposed changes, it's not ok to play dumb like David Kim is.
|
The improved F2P is nice but I guess we will never see ladder go F2P since it's relatively easy to cheat. Setting up custom games might bring some people in but it's probably not as noob friendly as playing on the team ladder with a couple of friends...
|
On November 10 2013 03:36 aZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2013 03:26 Grumbels wrote:
The essence of Lalush's video was the brood war micro footage.
What happens is that people presumably dislike brood war being mentioned, so since they can't actually argue with Lalush's points, because the subject matter is somewhat complicated, instead they go troll on forums with fake concern about "disregard for viewer's time" or "divisive framing of the subject matter" as if they are neutral arbiters speaking objectively about the situation. As if anyone at Blizzard should care about the delivery of the message, if anyone at Blizzard couldn't take the video seriously because of the framing or whatever then they don't deserve their job. This is one of the most stupid things I have ever read. If you want to get your point across, you tailor it to the people you try to convince. Especially given the long history of BW v SC2 (ever since the release of SC2), it is especially important that your point does not become BW had it, so SC2 should have it too. Even more so when you are talking to the SC2 development team. You can beat a guy over the head with your point or persuade him with honey. If the person you are trying to convince is in the position of decision, honey is better, everytime. You put aside your ego and the strength of your point (which may not be as strong as you think it is anyway) and try to win your point by persuading not bludgeoning. The world works this way.
If anyone mentions the video what inevitably happens is that some concerns will be brought up about the presentation: sloppy editing, slow pacing, monotone voice, the choice of brood war for the comparisons and so on. I don't think any of that counts as a valid argument. There is plenty of valid discussion to be had about the video, but somehow complaining about the presentation is the only thing that some people can bring to the discussion. All this pearl clutching about trivial matters is just too much and makes me consider that these are dishonest tactics that substitute for actual arguments.
I'm not going to speak for Lalush, but my reading of the video is that it can't be helped that it's divisive. There was very interesting micro in brood war, but it's missing in the sequel. That's why the brood war footage is the point of the video. It seems like quite a simple concept.
Oh, and in the "real world" Blizzard was never going to implement anything of this video no matter what. I don't know what you were expecting...
|
The thing about the micro skills is it doesn't even matter if the casual viewer can appreciate it, because if they can't then the game is still the same spectacle for them. But for the knowledgable people, they can see and appreciate it and most importantly of all, it allows for a more enjoyable, fun and skill based game for the players. This will lead to higher win rates for top players, better rewards for the best and make esports much more enjoyable overall. Just because the casuals can't understand doesn't mean its negative for the casuals. How could it be? It will just be over their head. The fact is even if the casuals don't understand the subtlety of the skills it will still make for better viewing for them indirectly. By creating better games and more dominant displays/
|
On November 10 2013 04:16 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2013 03:36 aZealot wrote:On November 10 2013 03:26 Grumbels wrote:
The essence of Lalush's video was the brood war micro footage.
What happens is that people presumably dislike brood war being mentioned, so since they can't actually argue with Lalush's points, because the subject matter is somewhat complicated, instead they go troll on forums with fake concern about "disregard for viewer's time" or "divisive framing of the subject matter" as if they are neutral arbiters speaking objectively about the situation. As if anyone at Blizzard should care about the delivery of the message, if anyone at Blizzard couldn't take the video seriously because of the framing or whatever then they don't deserve their job. This is one of the most stupid things I have ever read. If you want to get your point across, you tailor it to the people you try to convince. Especially given the long history of BW v SC2 (ever since the release of SC2), it is especially important that your point does not become BW had it, so SC2 should have it too. Even more so when you are talking to the SC2 development team. You can beat a guy over the head with your point or persuade him with honey. If the person you are trying to convince is in the position of decision, honey is better, everytime. You put aside your ego and the strength of your point (which may not be as strong as you think it is anyway) and try to win your point by persuading not bludgeoning. The world works this way. If anyone mentions the video what inevitably happens is that some concerns will be brought up about the presentation: sloppy editing, slow pacing, monotone voice, the choice of brood war for the comparisons and so on. I don't think any of that counts as a valid argument. There is plenty of valid discussion to be had about the video, but somehow complaining about the presentation is the only thing that some people can bring to the discussion. All this pearl clutching about trivial matters is just too much and makes me consider that these are dishonest tactics that substitute for actual arguments. I'm not going to speak for Lalush, but my reading of the video is that it can't be helped that it's divisive. There was very interesting micro in brood war, but it's missing in the sequel. That's why the brood war footage is the point of the video. It seems like quite a simple concept. Oh, and in the "real world" Blizzard was never going to implement anything of this video no matter what. I don't know what you were expecting...
Presentation is a key component of making any argument. Your points don't exist in a vacuum. This also means respecting the time of the people you are presenting to. A 45 minute video of which more than half are BW clips does not do that. Nor does it add to the argument when the argument should be about improving aspects of SC2 in specific ways. This is not to say that a better presented video may have had more impact with the development team. The point is, we may never know.
Second, you are assuming that your argument is the right and correct one. This may or may not be the case. But, let's not assume that the person you are making the argument to necessarily believes it just because you (and everyone else of your group on the forum) are convinced of the strength of your argument. For example, I myself am not sure how much of the changes LaLush proposed would or should fit into SC2. Turrets I can unreservedly get on board with, the rest I am not sure about. Heck, I may even be wrong about turrets. I did, however, want to see some testing to see what could fit into SC2 without overhauling the game too much. I say this because I have an incremental and conservative attitude towards SC2.
I should also add, that we are basing this dissection of DK's reply on a question - the specifics of which I do not know - at a panel discussion. It is quite easy to talk past one another (especially if the question was "Did you see the Depth of Micro article on TL?"). Again, a focused video could have led to focused questions and less opportunity for DK to evade the issue with a general reply. Finally, we may yet have more micro in SC2. Just maybe not the type that was in BW and was showcased in the last half of that clip. This may not necessarily be a bad thing. It depends on what micro enhancements that the SC2 development team do make, the use of these changes by the playerbase, and their effect in improving SC2 gameplay.
|
On November 10 2013 04:16 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2013 03:36 aZealot wrote:On November 10 2013 03:26 Grumbels wrote:
The essence of Lalush's video was the brood war micro footage.
What happens is that people presumably dislike brood war being mentioned, so since they can't actually argue with Lalush's points, because the subject matter is somewhat complicated, instead they go troll on forums with fake concern about "disregard for viewer's time" or "divisive framing of the subject matter" as if they are neutral arbiters speaking objectively about the situation. As if anyone at Blizzard should care about the delivery of the message, if anyone at Blizzard couldn't take the video seriously because of the framing or whatever then they don't deserve their job. This is one of the most stupid things I have ever read. If you want to get your point across, you tailor it to the people you try to convince. Especially given the long history of BW v SC2 (ever since the release of SC2), it is especially important that your point does not become BW had it, so SC2 should have it too. Even more so when you are talking to the SC2 development team. You can beat a guy over the head with your point or persuade him with honey. If the person you are trying to convince is in the position of decision, honey is better, everytime. You put aside your ego and the strength of your point (which may not be as strong as you think it is anyway) and try to win your point by persuading not bludgeoning. The world works this way. If anyone mentions the video what inevitably happens is that some concerns will be brought up about the presentation: sloppy editing, slow pacing, monotone voice, the choice of brood war for the comparisons and so on. I don't think any of that counts as a valid argument. There is plenty of valid discussion to be had about the video, but somehow complaining about the presentation is the only thing that some people can bring to the discussion. All this pearl clutching about trivial matters is just too much and makes me consider that these are dishonest tactics that substitute for actual arguments.
The argument we're making is not so different, just from opposite ends, you are saying that I'm avoid the content by attacking the presentation, but I'm not the one that needs to be convinced of the content and I agree with it regardless. The development team are the people that need to be convinced and to a lesser extent the player base as a whole in order to put that pressure on the development team.
If the people he was trying to convince are inherently skeptical of translating BW concepts directly into SC2 then don't give them any reason dismiss you, keep it focused, prioritize the stuff that is immediately useful and then on the stuff that is less applicable but that you still feel is important. The first 18 minutes does an excellent job with intercut broodwar footage of illustrating it's point (though not necessarily in the optimal order) and the 28 minutes of BW highlights with no analysis does not strengthen that and in the eyes of the target audience may in fact weaken it for the reasons both you and I have been saying.
|
On November 10 2013 04:36 aZealot wrote:
a focused video could have led to focused questions and less opportunity for DK to evade the issue with a general reply
That's never going to happen, sorry. He'll find new ways to evade questions.
|
Those carbot decals are stupid. Are we playing a serious game ?
At least make decals and skins so that one can choose not to have them displayed because it just feels gimmicky. Carbot zealots in game soon ?
|
On November 10 2013 03:38 Taguchi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2013 03:16 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2013 03:09 Intricate wrote:
I don't understand why David Kim would say that it is difficult to see the micro involved in the "Depth of Micro" video... It's pretty obvious who can show more skill and it isn't that difficult to understand. It's like saying that the vast majority of starcraft fans are incapable of understanding something that can be explained T.T" I really hope that he reconsiders and implements the changes because it would definitely raise the skill ceiling for competitive play. Well it did take a 15 minute video to explain how the micro worked and why is was so impressive. I watched SC2 with some friends who don't play last night and they were impressed with blink stalker micro and muta's hunting down medivacs. I don't think they would have been noticeably more impressed if the micro was like it was in BW. So it took you 15 minutes to understand that a sc2 viking must stop before it shoots, but with a few tweaks in engine parameters it doesn't need to stop to shoot? Do you understand the difference between 'seeing the difference at a glance' and 'delving into the mechanics/code that makes it all happen'? It's ok to be a fanboy, it's ok not to like proposed changes, it's not ok to play dumb like David Kim is.
It's hard to convey on-screen how stop-shoot micro works...Like, I've seen Nada's vulture videos and stuff, I wouldn't have known it was a 'thing' unless someone pointed it out in some way (caster). So for this, I can see people thinking that stop-shoot viking isn't that impressive if no one points it out and explains what the person is doing...haha, because when I first saw the SC2 phoenix, I thought the person microing was doing the stop-shoot thing until I learned the phoenix does it on its own.
I agree that it's super easy to implement, but they just dont want to 'cause its not something that a lot of people might pick up on?
|
On November 10 2013 05:18 [PkF] Wire wrote:
Those carbot decals are stupid. Are we playing a serious game ?
At least make decals and skins so that one can choose not to have them displayed because it just feels gimmicky. Carbot zealots in game soon ?
Spr srs spr game! PEGI 60! Not retired yet? You are TOO YOUNG FOR SC2!!!... Seriously, everybody likes Carbot's style, why don't bring it in and let people have a little fun? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
