It's monday, so I released a "fun" video today. The series is called "Bronze Science" and it pays homage to Bro Science with a bit more Rhode Island in the accent and a bit heavier satire. I try to bring up common lines of thought with a twist at the end in the hopes of stirring up discussion and potentially helping players to improve their mentality or consider a different perspective. This particular video generated a lot more controversy than I expected it to and seeing that reddit only keeps things around for a day or so, I'd like to continue the conversation here.
Video
Discussion
I'll be editing this section to help outline the major points people are bringing up:
Something like boxing a worker every time it comes out is athleticism for athleticism's sake. The boxing itself isn't a decision. If you have the time to do it, you will box that worker and send it to mine. The decision here comes in when you do not have the time to do both the worker boxing and the another action and you must choose to do one or the other.
Compare that to Injecting Larva in Sc2. Injecting is a different kind of choice because there are other options to consider. Save for transfuses? Spread Creep? Defend the wall instead of injecting? This mechanic still has its root in athleticism. Injecting on time is an important skill for zerg players, especially in the first 9 or so minutes of the game. But it leans more towards decision making than the pure athleticism of boxing workers.
I think any RTS will have both athleticism and decision making aspects. Pure athleticism looks like a multitask game. Pure decision making looks like a game of chess or go. But at what point in the spectrum is too much toward the decision making side? What point is too much toward the athleticism side? and where do broodwar and Sc2 land on the scale?
I think the main thing to discuss is this:
Does athleticism for athleticism's sake have a place in modern eSports?
It's monday, so I released a "fun" video today. The series is called "Bronze Science" and it pays homage to Bro Science with a bit more Rhode Island in the accent and a bit heavier satire. I try to bring up common lines of thought with a twist at the end in the hopes of stirring up discussion and potentially helping players to improve their mentality or consider a different perspective. This particular video generated a lot more controversy than I expected it to and seeing that reddit only keeps things around for a day or so, I'd like to continue the conversation here.
After discussing different opinions on the matter the place I'm at to start things off is this:
Something like boxing a worker every time it comes out is athleticism for athleticism's sake. The boxing itself isn't a decision. When the worker comes out, you will box it and do something with it, every time. It taxes the player's ability to do other things making the game more difficult. But not in a way directly related to the game, we could just as easily replace this task with tapping your foot to a certain bpm or running a worker from a neutral zealot on a disconnected part of the map.
Compare that to Injecting Larva in Sc2. Injecting is a choice, because there are other options to consider. Save for transfuses? Spread Creep? Defend the wall instead of injecting? This mechanic still has its root in athleticism. Injecting on time is an important skill for zerg players, especially in the first 9 or so minutes of the game. But it leans more towards decision making than the pure athleticism of boxing workers.
I think any RTS will have both athleticism and decision making aspects. Pure athleticism looks like a multitask game. Pure decision making looks like a game of chess or go. But at what point in the spectrum is too much toward the decision making side? What point is too much toward the athleticism side? and where do broodwar and Sc2 land on the scale?
I think the main thing to discuss is this:
Does athleticism for athleticism's sake have a place in modern eSports?
I think your post & your video betray a misunderstanding of the RTS genre. Which is surprising to me, because you already had feedback from the Reddit thread to reflect on. For anyone interested in discussing this topic, I believe you shouldn't specifically address Jak's question because it incorrectly frames the issue.
In Real TIME Strategy games, TIME is Important. More specifically, what you CHOOSE to spend time on is important. . Sending workers to minerals promptly has a profound impact on resource gathering, which in turn has a profound impact on the game.
If I try to send every worker to a mineral patch immediately, I won't have time to do anything else. And the way I play will be very different for someone who doesn't prioritize his time in the same way. If I try to do that against a Terran player who managed to spread minefields on the map, I'll lose badly. If I do it against a Terran who's holed up in his base, while I send waves of Zeal & Dragoons at his tank line, the decision may very well be correct.
In fact, I would argue that how quickly you receive minerals (which is dependent on how quickly you send your workers to mine) has much more of an impact on game then whether you lay a tumor or inject.
I like that aspect of the game personally and feel it is part of Starcraft's identity/heritage or whatever you want to call it.
Personally I don't really care particularly where the line is drawn in terms of what constitutes monotonous mechanics, as long as the relative level of chops in that regard stays roughly equivalent across the races, which i'm not really sure is the case at all, especially of late.
It's monday, so I released a "fun" video today. The series is called "Bronze Science" and it pays homage to Bro Science with a bit more Rhode Island in the accent and a bit heavier satire. I try to bring up common lines of thought with a twist at the end in the hopes of stirring up discussion and potentially helping players to improve their mentality or consider a different perspective. This particular video generated a lot more controversy than I expected it to and seeing that reddit only keeps things around for a day or so, I'd like to continue the conversation here.
After discussing different opinions on the matter the place I'm at to start things off is this:
Something like boxing a worker every time it comes out is athleticism for athleticism's sake. The boxing itself isn't a decision. When the worker comes out, you will box it and do something with it, every time. It taxes the player's ability to do other things making the game more difficult. But not in a way directly related to the game, we could just as easily replace this task with tapping your foot to a certain bpm or running a worker from a neutral zealot on a disconnected part of the map.
Compare that to Injecting Larva in Sc2. Injecting is a choice, because there are other options to consider. Save for transfuses? Spread Creep? Defend the wall instead of injecting? This mechanic still has its root in athleticism. Injecting on time is an important skill for zerg players, especially in the first 9 or so minutes of the game. But it leans more towards decision making than the pure athleticism of boxing workers.
I think any RTS will have both athleticism and decision making aspects. Pure athleticism looks like a multitask game. Pure decision making looks like a game of chess or go. But at what point in the spectrum is too much toward the decision making side? What point is too much toward the athleticism side? and where do broodwar and Sc2 land on the scale?
I think the main thing to discuss is this:
Does athleticism for athleticism's sake have a place in modern eSports?
This post, and your video, really show how little you understand about RTS. Even after time for reflection, you STILL don't understand. For anyone interested in discussing this topic, PLEASE ignore Jakatak's question. He incorrectly frames the issue.
In Real TIME Strategy games, TIME IS IMPORTANT. More specifically, WHAT YOU CHOOSE CHOOSE CHOOSE TO SPEND TIME ON IS IMPORTANT.. Sending worker to minerals promptly has a profound impact on resource gathering, which in turn has a profound impact on the game.
If I try to send every worker to a mineral patch immediately, I won't have time to do anything else. And the way I play will be very different for someone who doesn't prioritize his time in the same way. If I try to do that against a Terran player who managed to spread minefields on the map, I'll lose badly. If I do it against a Terran who's holed up in his base, while I send waves of Zeal & Dragoons at his tank line, the decision may very well be correct.
How quickly you receive minerals is has much more of an impact on game then whether you lay a tumor or inject..
I apologize for framing the discussion incorrectly. I don't feel all the capitals and personal attacks were necessary. I will attempt to remedy the problem, but it would be much easier if you were working with me to share your knowledge so that we all can benefit and learn.
On April 29 2014 10:10 -_- wrote:This post, and your video, really show how little you understand about RTS. Even after time for reflection, you STILL don't understand. For anyone interested in discussing this topic, PLEASE ignore Jakatak's question. He incorrectly frames the issue.
In Real TIME Strategy games, TIME IS IMPORTANT. More specifically, WHAT YOU CHOOSE CHOOSE CHOOSE TO SPEND TIME ON IS IMPORTANT.. Sending worker to minerals promptly has a profound impact on resource gathering, which in turn has a profound impact on the game.
If I try to send every worker to a mineral patch immediately, I won't have time to do anything else. And the way I play will be very different for someone who doesn't prioritize his time in the same way. If I try to do that against a Terran player who managed to spread minefields on the map, I'll lose badly. If I do it against a Terran who's holed up in his base, while I send waves of Zeal & Dragoons at his tank line, the decision may very well be correct.
How quickly you receive minerals is has much more of an impact on game then whether you lay a tumor or inject..
yo I think your post would look better if you used more capital letters and bold text
I think technical skill is very much important to at least one idea of an esport. Certainly not all of them have to be technically demanding but it's useful to be impressive. It's easier to understand what is impressive about athleticism and mechanical skill, and it also puts pressure on creativity to optimize.
As a left handed player I cant tell you how much rebineable hot keys helps me play. Without them I would never have bothered playing the game tbh. To say its something at this day and age shouldn't be in a game is just foolish.
It wasn't humorous enough, probably because the points it brings up are old and have been discussed to death and don't work as a satire of things unintelligent people mock very well.
Things like OMG VOIDRAYS OP could more easily be funny.
Is it thought-provoking? It perhaps could have been if the issues it brings up satirically were in any way new in concept or perspective.
Wait, is this supposed to be a serious video and discussion? I honestly can't tell.
The video is obviously sarcastic, but there is some legitimacy to the complaints in it. My take on it, is athleticism is good for the game, as long as there's also a decision to be made. If the Queen was only able to Inject, I would hate it and want it removed, however because of the decision part of it, there's a reason for it to exist and so mechanics get to play a part. I don't like Boosting Medivacs, because there's no trade off and so it feels just like a "hit everytime on cooldown button," however that's not entirely true either. People can say there's less multitasking to be made compared to BW, but honestly this is time you can spend on out multitasking your opponent, attacking multiple places at the same time. Out multitasking your opponent, instead of out multitasking the game.
well sc2 replaced moving workers to mine and 12 unit selection with other artificial macro functions like injects. I prefered broodwars more straightforward gameplay. I think the limited unit selection helps make the game strategic, if your units dont clump as much and you can spread out squads of 12 you can place your untis strategically easier. This been talked to death ofc.
The video is dumb and undermines the rest of the OP.
The reason StarCraft is successful is not because the game tries to set the pace, but because the players, themselves, can do so far more easily than in other RTS games. You can strech your opponent to his limits in StarCraft 2 because the game gives far more power (and control potential) to mobile units than static defenses, not because it takes you an extra few seconds to box groups of lings to send to a nexus.
Honestly, if the devs went nuts with SC2 and added an auto-cast feature for unit construction, I don't think it would enter CoD-style casual hell. The core of the game, along with what makes it great, are still intact. Even now, people are annihilating their wrists at 300apm in what was supposed to be a game for garbage foreigner noobs who were D with Protoss on ICCuP or something...
The video seems to be the same kind of joke as the "Lings of Liberty: The Rise of the Patchzergs" thread back in the day. Everybody finds it shitty and then the author comes out and says it was obviously a joke and only VIP masterrace can understand it.
Regardless, first answer said it well, in an RTS game, time and attention are resources. You know you have a limited number of actions you can do at a given time, and you have to make a choice. More athletic players will be able to make more actions, but not necessarily the ones they needed to do at that time, and I think that's fine.
On April 29 2014 10:11 Wombat_NI wrote: I like that aspect of the game personally and feel it is part of Starcraft's identity/heritage or whatever you want to call it.
Personally I don't really care particularly where the line is drawn in terms of what constitutes monotonous mechanics, as long as the relative level of chops in that regard stays roughly equivalent across the races, which i'm not really sure is the case at all, especially of late.
On April 29 2014 18:01 ZenithM wrote: The video seems to be the same kind of joke as the "Lings of Liberty: The Rise of the Patchzergs" thread back in the day. Everybody finds it shitty and then the author comes out and says it was obviously a joke and only VIP masterrace can understand it.
He was serious about zerg being broken, the satire was his proposal at the end.
On April 29 2014 18:01 ZenithM wrote: The video seems to be the same kind of joke as the "Lings of Liberty: The Rise of the Patchzergs" thread back in the day. Everybody finds it shitty and then the author comes out and says it was obviously a joke and only VIP masterrace can understand it.
He was serious about zerg being broken, the satire was his proposal at the end.
Only the satire looked like 80% of whine threads, only with cool pictures ;D
No, it does not. The athleticism part should be fun.
Ideally everything you do in a RTS should be a decision to be interfered with with the amount of tedious actions reduced to the minimum. In my opinion the focus of RTS' should be the conflict (micro) instead of the buildup (macro). It is multiplayer after all so the game should be about interactions instead of just actions. Athleticism should be about micro and multitasking with macro more as a tool than a necessity.
I'd like macro to be about getting more, not about sustaining the things you already have. I dislike the kind of macro where you have to babysit your base to get the 100% out of it. I don't think it's fun or interesting to click every single building to build units or to periodically come back to my base to send a worker to mine/cast a spell on all my production to get maximum efficiency (which is the reason I don't play starbow). It's not a choice, it's necessary. There is no interaction. It feels like I'm playing alone.
I prefer to just build more bases&production or upgrade because building more can be observed and reacted to. I can't prevent my opponent from using macro mechanics. I can try to tax his multitasking to point where he can't manage it anymore but it's really not up to me. Using macro mechanics give no incentives to other guy to do anything; it is assumed that they are properly used. On the other hand if you build an extra base you stretch your defenses and I can send units over to look for openings.
On April 29 2014 09:55 JaKaTaK wrote: Injecting is a different kind of choice because there are other options to consider. Save for transfuses? Spread Creep? Defend the wall instead of injecting?
I disagree that queen management is about choices. The way I see it there are only 2 choices about queens. When to build them and how many. After that there is only 1 optimal way to do things which depends on information. What you are talking about is making an educated guess. It is not the same as having a choice. The former is based on information in the current game, the latter is done before the game even starts.
You wouldn't ever plant a bunch of creep tumors right in front of a group of hellions because your build demands it or when you know an all-in is coming. Just like you will always choose defending the wall over injecting because not dieing right now is more important than having slightly more production a little later. Of course you can choose to do all those things but the most likely result will be your loss. Most recent example: Jaedong vs Impact game 3 DH Bucharest. I bet you anything he would've liked to trade a few injects or his 3rd base for his queen being in the correct spot.
On April 29 2014 09:55 JaKaTaK wrote: But at what point in the spectrum is too much toward the decision making side? What point is too much toward the athleticism side? and where do broodwar and Sc2 land on the scale?
I think it is too much on the decision making side when the decision itself becomes more important than the quality of execution kinda like deciding to go broodlord+infestor in WoL because the only way to fuck that up was letting your PC die. On the other hand there is too much athleticism when the thing you want to do lacks any choice whatsoever meaning it stops feeling like a game and more like a task which is what those macro mechanics are.
Starcraft 1+2 have way too much of that athleticism for athleticism's sake thing, Company of Heroes/Warhammer 40k focuses everything on micro and decisionmaking, there is no repetitive task at all while games like Age of Empires and C&C Generals have a better balance of things (I'm not talking about actual game balance) than the CoH/W40k but only Supreme Commander got it just right in my opinion. Though that game does have problems in presentation which is a bigger deal than it sounds like. Finally we have Total Annihilation which, when you want athleticism for athleticism's sake, is the ultimate game because it also has everything else, too, in a good ratio I'd say.
On April 29 2014 10:11 Wombat_NI wrote: I like that aspect of the game personally and feel it is part of Starcraft's identity/heritage or whatever you want to call it.
Personally I don't really care particularly where the line is drawn in terms of what constitutes monotonous mechanics, as long as the relative level of chops in that regard stays roughly equivalent across the races, which i'm not really sure is the case at all, especially of late.
Are you inside my head?
Yeah apologies man should have at least asked permission beforehand
Well if we are going to compare and make fun of BW over SC2 (even though that horse was beaten to death)...
You could watch a "boring macro game" where two players just produce units and a-move them in BW and it would still be really interesting.
This is why SC2 shouldn't have MBS and "good pathing".
Flash had made so many units and spent so much time making units from barracks that he couldn't even stimhack them all SC2-style to the base, so they just marched on move command and still won because Flash's macro was just that good.
This is also the reason why smaller armies could win in BW more easily, because smaller armies were always more efficient as players would spend less time building units and more time microing and focusing on the battle.
Flash had made so many units and spent so much time making units from barracks that he couldn't even stimhack them all SC2-style to the base, so they just marched on move command and still won because Flash's macro was just that good.
This is also the reason why smaller armies could win in BW more easily, because smaller armies were always more efficient as players would spend less time building units and more time microing and focusing on the battle.
What is fun or interesting about spending most of your time making units? Wouldn't it be better if you could spend that time actually fighting your battles? I understand the appeal of pristine macro I just don't understand obsessing about it. Wouldn't you prefer actually seeing what a guy does more than the results of it?
Let's pretend (really don't need to) starcraft is music.
No musician will play as mechanically adept as when they have "warmed up". Warming up is being comfortable with something that is purely physical, there is a biological portion of the consideration of athleticism in any case! Mechanically adept-itude-ness is a state of mind of the state of our physicality, the feedback of our attitude comes from the vigor that our physical impulses react to.
Now, Starcraft is a game. (for pretend ^_-) Strategery, mindhaxgames, decisions-making, improvisation, these have been found to be seemingly at the heart of our brain in terms of natural adept-a-tud-inal respons-ical bits.
Anyways warm up, always, even in game, OBVIOUSLY. Mentally and physically at the same time, by s-APMming.
I was hoping this would be a discussion on physical workout training as part of a progaming schedule and the impacts thereof. Am Sad. We need more of that.
The SupCom reference was interesting, as SupCom has a higher APM ceiling than any other RTS out there. In SC2, at some point things stop being useful. Sure, you can micro your immortal in a warp prism to dodge Marauder shots, but you don't have many immortals. In SupCom you have potentially 1000 units that you can micro to dodge the simulated shots of 1000 other units. Even 5000 APM wouldn't be enough. I think that pushes the micro requirement too far.
When discussing the resources for a game, one of them is, indeed, your ability to "think" for want of a better word.
How long it takes you to perform your actions impacts how many actions you can do in a timeframe. You can reduce the time it takes to do those actions by practicing them. It takes me a long time to lay tumours and do injects because - I play random - I'm not very good If I were to practice and practice these until they were second nature, then I wouldn't need to think about them and the impact of doing them on my think bank would be greatly reduced.
All of these things, the macro, the micro, the decision making (army composition, choice of attack location, choosing what actions to prioritise over other actions) are what makes up a player. Until we can quantify those (hur hur plugging my own work), it'll be difficult to show what brings people/games out on top and when it's just doing it for the sake of doing it/giving players something to do.
I think that StarCraft isn't (or shouldn't be) about "athleticism", or "decision making", but rather about the combination of those, and more importantly about playing against your opponent. If I box a worker when it comes out, I'm not playing against my opponent, just against the game (like a rallye driver drives against the track, not his opponent) and the only decision I make is whether this otherwise trivial chore is worth my time right now, which, as Gowerly already pointed out, is a decision that gets increasingly meaningless the higher my APM is. Perhaps it would be an interesting decision if everyone had the same APM, but since that is not the case the only thing it accomplishes is that players that can click/type faster are already better players for no other reason than their clicking/typing speed.
Theoretically, SC2 has this sort of "interesting" decisions with MULEs, chronoboost and injecting larvae all requiring energy. In practice however, there is no real decision there (outside of specific build orders) since banking up Nexus/Queen/OC energy is pretty much always bad, and it's up to the opponent to prevent a player from using that energy to bolster the economy by forcing scans/transfuses/etc.
Automining is good because there is no situation where you would want an SCV to sit idly besides the CC, and when you're sending that SCV to work, you're doing a chore. Being good at doing chores is not something that should be rewarded.
Basically, if I were to design a SC-like RTS, for everything a player needs to do that requires atheliticsm I would ask the following question: Does it involve non-trivial decision-making that is directed against your opponent? If no, then it needs to go, or at least the trivial parts need to be automated.
I realize that since SC2 has traditionally had a lot of chores, many people have come to enjoy this twitchiness and become uneasy when there's a second or two in the game where they don't actually need to click anything. To equate this twitchiness with RTS is a fallacy, though. RTS are not about fitting as many menial tasks as possible in a limited timeframe, RTS are about making limited-information decisions under time pressure and executing them as best as possible. To say that JaKaTaK misunderstands RTS is ludicrous.
Also, if you know anything about sports, you'll know that it requires money, and that this money comes from viewers (whether directly or indirectly via sponsors). This means that the large majority of viewers of the RTS of the future will not actually play that game at a high level. A game that aims to become that RTS of the future therefore requires on-screen action that is impressive (and exciting) to someone who has watched lots of games but doesn't play the game very often. Ling surrounds, tank positioning, burrowed banelings, DTs blocking floating OCs, these are the sort of things SC3 needs. Not players clicking 400 times per minute to do the most trivial menial tasks.
On April 29 2014 21:27 Gowerly wrote: In SupCom you have potentially 1000 units that you can micro to dodge the simulated shots of 1000 other units. Even 5000 APM wouldn't be enough. I think that pushes the micro requirement too far.
Actually the number of units changes nothing about the difficulty of micro. You'd just micro differently. The micro scales from single units to increasingly bigger groups of units. Mitigating damage is also not the only thing to achieve with micro, you can also maximize your own damage output by flanking the opponent. What you said about SC2 is also true here: keeping 1 unit alive when you have 1000 isn't useful. You don't try to keep every unit alive but rather as many as possible.
On April 29 2014 21:27 Gowerly wrote: When discussing the resources for a game, one of them is, indeed, your ability to "think" for want of a better word.
You should try to clarify because I think this is wrong. You do not ever think in a game. You do whatever you decided to do until you have to react using responses you thought about beforehand. This is your strategy. The only thing to think about ingame is what tactics to employ given the information you have.
On April 29 2014 21:36 And G wrote: I realize that since SC2 has traditionally had a lot of chores, many people have come to enjoy this twitchiness and become uneasy when there's a second or two in the game where they don't actually need to click anything. To equate this twitchiness with RTS is a fallacy, though. RTS are not about fitting as many menial tasks as possible in a limited timeframe, RTS are about making limited-information decisions under time pressure and executing them as best as possible.
I agree with your post I just want to add something. Sometimes when reading about what makes Brood War the superior game to SC2 it feels to me that Starcraft is the only RTS people know and the mere thought that a good game doesn't need to have a lot of tedious tasks is quite alien to them. Especially when MBS, auto-mine and size of control groups come up.
On April 29 2014 21:27 Gowerly wrote: In SupCom you have potentially 1000 units that you can micro to dodge the simulated shots of 1000 other units. Even 5000 APM wouldn't be enough. I think that pushes the micro requirement too far.
Actually the number of units changes nothing about the difficulty of micro. You'd just micro differently. The micro scales from single units to increasingly bigger groups of units. Mitigating damage is also not the only thing to achieve with micro, you can also maximize your own damage output by flanking the opponent. What you said about SC2 is also true here: keeping 1 unit alive when you have 1000 isn't useful. You don't try to keep every unit alive but rather as many as possible.
If you can micro to keep one more unit alive than your opponent, then it's a victory, you've made a more cost efficient engagement. I know in SupCom it's less important because resources are infinite. However, it's still true. The fewer units die, the less time it will take to rebuild your army. This scales. If you can micro enough to keep 2 alive it's even better. 3 even more than that, all the way up to 1000. If you can dance your units around so that your units are hitting and your opponent's aren't, then you're going to win. Sure, large army positioning is great, flanking and such, but when it comes down to it in SupCom: You can dodge bullets. As long as that's true, you can micro individual units (all the way to 1000) to win the fights, which will always beat positioning. With AoE units, beam units, etc, this is less true, but outside of Experimentals and maybe strat bombers, most units just have projectile weapons.
On April 29 2014 21:27 Gowerly wrote: When discussing the resources for a game, one of them is, indeed, your ability to "think" for want of a better word.
You should try to clarify because I think this is wrong. You do not ever think in a game. You do whatever you decided to do until you have to react using responses you thought about beforehand. This is your strategy. The only thing to think about ingame is what tactics to employ given the information you have.
You won't win games by just blindly going in and doing what you set out to do. You modify your strategy based on what your opponent does. You don't ling/bling vs mech, you modify your game to match your opponent. This is thought. You can optimise thought by making it second nature, but it's still thought. You use thought to: - Position your army - Perform "Automatic" tasks (such as placing tumours, building supply generators, using chronoboost, dropping mules, doing scans) - Building/Composing your army - Using "Micro" to move your army in fights, to use spells How you prioritise where your thought goes and how effeciently you use your thought can determine how well you do in your game.
As much as this is both serious and fun, I actually believe there is a way to avoid "going back" and just go ahead instead to once again maximize the required skill so that the most skilled players can stand out in a "godly" fashion.
For instance, I believe you can use new information in the UI tab to really improve the skill level.
If you allow players to see their income, their units lost, their total units (and clickable/selectable through hotkeys by individual hotkeying) as well as tabs to show their upgrades, I think most players, also koreans, would see this kind of information as a drastic improvement to strategical gameplay.
Of course, with lots of new tabs we need transparency so we still maintain most of our overview of the game.
Also, if the "custom hotkeys and cameras" would be improved by increeasing camera location hotkeys to 20 as well as army hotkeys to 20, im sure stuff like "b+1, b+2, b+3, b+4, b+5" would be useful in some way. Personally I think you should be able to bind which unit type you wish to "select all army hotkey", so for each viking, ghost, templar, infestor, stalker, prism etc on the map, you select all of only that unit type. This can be done similarily by allowing alternative hotkey selection instead of only alt and shift. (g+1, g+2, g+3 etc.)
Having basically limitless possiblities for hotkeys and custom UI allows players to really outclass other players through handling more information which only helps you if you pay attention,.
I also think blizzard should make camera locations save each time you load the map.
Game design completely changes when you're designing a game for competition as opposed for entertainment.
I believe the reason Blizzard took the steps it took to make the game more CONVENIENT, has a lot less to do with efficiency and more to do with lowering the level of entrance for casual gamers.
Any changes that appeal to casual players usually piss off veteran players of most competitive franchises. It's a marketing strategy, and it usually undermines the competitive side of the game.
So as an Esport exclusively some of these changes were to me, a negative.
The higher the skill ceiling, the more complex the mechanics, the more entertaining the Esport.
On April 29 2014 17:01 sertas wrote: well sc2 replaced moving workers to mine and 12 unit selection with other artificial macro functions like injects. I prefered broodwars more straightforward gameplay. I think the limited unit selection helps make the game strategic, if your units dont clump as much and you can spread out squads of 12 you can place your untis strategically easier. This been talked to death ofc.
so if you had a choice of formation (clumped up or spaced via increased collision range) would you be happy?
On April 29 2014 23:37 Laertes wrote: Someone mentioned Starbow in the thread. I think it's important that we understand what Starbow shows us compared to hots if we want to understand how APM affects esports. Starbow is down to its core, BW and SC2 mixed, the balance is primarily BW because BW proved itself more inherently balanced(Onegoal tried to base their balance on SC2 and failed horribly). Now I'm going to tell you a secret why starbow fails in some ways compared to SC2: The game is too hard. Even with some sc2 units and a clean UI and MBS and an economy that you don't have to babysit,the game is too strategically deep and no one wants to lose to someone light years better than them because no one wants to lose. If innovation faces theredbandit the top ranked player on the Starbow ladder in a Bo7, he will probably 4-0 him, such is the level of skill inherent in Starbow compared to SC2. So if Starbow is too hard for the average gamer and the average gamer won't play Starbow cause they don't like to lose, then I highly doubt any athleticism has place in esports because the easier a game is competitively (hearthstone) the more people will play it, inversely, the harder a game is the less people will play it.
I dont think Starbow is strategically deeper, it's just much less figured out.
For you. Or the game will totally be dead for you.
I, and many with me, like Starcraft 2 for what it is. An elitist video stating what's already been stated way too many times ain't gonna change my opinion.
@ClueClueClue I did specifically explain that it was satire. No one is trying to change your opinion. The video presents a perspective on an idea. From this people have been discussing for and against this perspective and others. It's not about who is right and who is wrong but what the truths are and what conclusions can be drawn from those truths.
On April 29 2014 21:27 Gowerly wrote: In SupCom you have potentially 1000 units that you can micro to dodge the simulated shots of 1000 other units. Even 5000 APM wouldn't be enough. I think that pushes the micro requirement too far.
Actually the number of units changes nothing about the difficulty of micro. You'd just micro differently. The micro scales from single units to increasingly bigger groups of units. Mitigating damage is also not the only thing to achieve with micro, you can also maximize your own damage output by flanking the opponent. What you said about SC2 is also true here: keeping 1 unit alive when you have 1000 isn't useful. You don't try to keep every unit alive but rather as many as possible.
If you can micro to keep one more unit alive than your opponent, then it's a victory, you've made a more cost efficient engagement. I know in SupCom it's less important because resources are infinite. However, it's still true. The fewer units die, the less time it will take to rebuild your army. This scales. If you can micro enough to keep 2 alive it's even better. 3 even more than that, all the way up to 1000. If you can dance your units around so that your units are hitting and your opponent's aren't, then you're going to win. Sure, large army positioning is great, flanking and such, but when it comes down to it in SupCom: You can dodge bullets. As long as that's true, you can micro individual units (all the way to 1000) to win the fights, which will always beat positioning. With AoE units, beam units, etc, this is less true, but outside of Experimentals and maybe strat bombers, most units just have projectile weapons.
I may have worded that poorly. Of course it's useful even beyond having a unit more since there is the reclaim mechanic which means additional resources for the one who can secure the position where the unit died. Everything else you said is true, too. You just missed my point. You said having a very high unit count would make micro too difficult but it's not any different to having just a few units. In a 200 vs 200 unit fight you wouldn't micro each unit individually you would always micro groups.
On April 29 2014 21:27 Gowerly wrote: When discussing the resources for a game, one of them is, indeed, your ability to "think" for want of a better word.
You should try to clarify because I think this is wrong. You do not ever think in a game. You do whatever you decided to do until you have to react using responses you thought about beforehand. This is your strategy. The only thing to think about ingame is what tactics to employ given the information you have.
You won't win games by just blindly going in and doing what you set out to do. You modify your strategy based on what your opponent does. You don't ling/bling vs mech, you modify your game to match your opponent. This is thought. You can optimise thought by making it second nature, but it's still thought. You use thought to: - Position your army - Perform "Automatic" tasks (such as placing tumours, building supply generators, using chronoboost, dropping mules, doing scans) - Building/Composing your army - Using "Micro" to move your army in fights, to use spells How you prioritise where your thought goes and how effeciently you use your thought can determine how well you do in your game.
I didn't say that. Also you're arguing much more game-specific than I am. What you said is more about builds than actual strategy. Generally speaking a strategy does not dictate what units to use but it describes your overall gameplan which can have branches to account for various situations. Figuring out what units to use comes after you decided on your gameplan.
In your example the Zerg's strategy might be to get up to 3 bases quickly, make sure he doesn't die, scout for Terran's 3rd. If Terran didn't build a 3rd he builds purely units and defends because the lack of 3rd implies an imminent attack. If Terran did build a 3rd Zerg can either decide to go full units and try to do damage at the 3rd or try to secure 4th base and from then on prevent Terran taking any more bases.
See what I did there? A strategy doesn't include specifics. If you get specific it becomes a build which is what you modify if given a reason. Just because Ling/Bling doesn't work against Mech doesn't mean the overall strategy of out-expanding Terran and keeping him contained is flawed. It just means that Ling/Bling is not the way to do it.
To the thought part: I'd describe with attention but I agree with your explanation.
On April 29 2014 23:26 KingAce wrote: The higher the skill ceiling, the more complex the mechanics, the more entertaining the Esport.
This isn't necessarily true. Complexity doesn't imply strategic depth or entertainment factor. This discussion came up in another thread but I can't remember which one. Ideally you want maximum depth for minimal complexity. Prime example: Go. There won't be getting any new people into a sport if they cannot figure out what the hell is going on. The sport might be entertaining for those who know what is happening but it won't become very popular.
If you are going to talk shit on the video, at least go to his youtube channel and realize this is part of a series of videos satirizing and exaggerating the opinions and perspectives of a bronze player. The fact that he includes it in a post with other, more serious content doesn't merit people lashing out at him. Sorry Jak, your vids are great, both the serious and the funny.
On April 30 2014 02:26 404AlphaSquad wrote: I actually agree with the vod? Am I a hardcore or do I just know what good design of a game is?
Neither. You just don't know or can't imaging anything else. But maybe you can enlighten me why you think it's good design. Though please skip the skill for skill's sake part.
On April 30 2014 02:26 404AlphaSquad wrote: I actually agree with the vod? Am I a hardcore or do I just know what good design of a game is?
Neither. You just don't know or can't imaging anything else. But maybe you can enlighten me why you think it's good design. Though please skip the skill for skill's sake part.
Well BW worked out nice imo. Sure it was hard and frustrating but it worked. All the things he listed in the video were intended by Blizzard. It was a specific design choice from the developers to prevent army clumping by only allowing players to select 12 units. It was intended that you can only select 1 building. It was intended that you had to send your scvs mining. They could have easily decide to implement those things but decided not to. And it all worked out. There werent nearly as many upsets in BW as in sc2 right now. Because SC2 is too random and doesnt reward practice as much as bw there will never be a true BONJWA. So my conclusion is that their design decisions in BW were superior.
On April 30 2014 02:26 404AlphaSquad wrote: I actually agree with the vod? Am I a hardcore or do I just know what good design of a game is?
Neither. You just don't know or can't imaging anything else. But maybe you can enlighten me why you think it's good design. Though please skip the skill for skill's sake part.
Well BW worked out nice imo. Sure it was hard and frustrating but it worked. All the things he listed in the video were intended by Blizzard. It was a specific design choice from the developers to prevent army clumping by only allowing players to select 12 units. It was intended that you can only select 1 building. It was intended that you had to send your scvs mining. They could have easily decide to implement those things but decided not to. And it all worked out. There werent nearly as many upsets in BW as in sc2 right now. Because SC2 is too random and doesnt reward practice as much as bw there will never be a true BONJWA. So my conclusion is that their design decisions in BW were superior.
So you base your judgment on the results rather than the mechanics themselves. My problem with all those things you mentioned is that you don't actually notice them. You just realize a while later that for some reason one guy has a bigger army than the other which just leaves the conclusion that the first guy macro'd better even though you couldn't see any of it earlier. Which leads me to some questions. Do you think BW can be improved? Do you think the game would be more entertaining if the players could spend more time microing their armies?
Relevant blog. In the light of this blog, if heavy mechanics have no place in modern e-sports, the word modern becomes sarcastic.
You kinda missed the question. Nobody said there should be next to none mechanics. The point was if heavy mechanics should be a requirement to even play the game. This blog establishes that micro is a mechanic. No one has a problem when a game is decided through micro because micro can be observed and appreciated hence it is entertaining. People want more of that in SC2.
Let's say 1v1 BW was too demanding and unrewarding for 95% of the gaming population to have any chance to get into it.
Ok. Now let's introduce unlimited selection, MBS and pathfinding that acts like a fluid dynamics simulation. Let's also supply this game with a matchmaking service to make it even more accessible.
The question now is: did these changes -- in any meaningful way -- lead to SC2 becoming more accessible to a broader subset of the gamer population?
I'm sure a lot of casuals who played the campaign actually enjoyed the changes. So in that context it's a YES. But what about 1v1? Did unlimited selection, MBS, fluid dynamics pathfinding, a map pool that wasn't changed for 1 year for fear of confusing casuals, an initial approach of balancing the game for all skill levels; did all these things suddenly make 25% of the gamer population potential 1v1 RTS gamers?
This is where I start having doubts. Personally I do not think SC2 1v1 multiplayer is, in any meaningful way, easier to get into than BW 1v1 multiplayer was. I think a 1v1 competitive RTS appealed to a similar percentage of the gamer population in 1998 as it did in 2010 and as it continues to do in 2014.
This does not mean that I think SC2 should have single building selection or 12 unit limited selection. But there are certain aspects of the game where I think a change would have minimal to zero impact on any casual gamers' experience -- but also benefit competitive play greatly.
One of those is smart casting. I feel strongly that SC2 should have semi-smartcasting such as in Dota2. This means that if you have 12 templars selected, only 1 of those templars will be highlighted, and only that one highlighted templar will cast a spell. This prevents 12 templars from casting 12 storms on a single spot like in BW. At the same time I think a semi-smartcasting change would benefit competitive play greatly, while having a minimal impact on the casual experience (if 1 in 100 campaign playing casuals notice anything I would be surprised).
Another thing I think Blizzard need to understand is that ALL the regularly 1v1 playing players of SC2 (whether bronze or GM) are as far removed from the definition of a true casual gamer as you can possibly get. It is not in Blizzard's interest to treat this demographic like idiots because the company -- for some reason -- happens to believe that a 1v1 competitive multiplayer RTS has the possibility of being marketed broadly while still remaining competitively viable.
I do not think you can create an RTS whose competitive mode is both competitively viable and accessible to casuals. I simply don't think it can be done. What I think future RTS' need to do is find a clever way to create a casual mode of the game that is similar enough in all essential aspects to the competitive mode.
But ultimately I think, when creating an RTS, you need to separate the casual and the competitive experience. If you don't -- then your competitive mode will end up with legitimacy issues.
A lot of people like to bring up MOBAs/ARTS as a counterexample where the professionals and the casuals play the same game and enjoy it. However, I don't think you can just call call captain's mode and all pick the "same game". There is a big difference in the competitive 5v5 MOBA rule set and the casual 5v5 MOBA ruleset. That's why only 5%-10% of these games' gamer populations play Captain's Mode.
In SC2, however, Blizzard are stubborn and continue to insist on "the one true Starcraft II experience". That one true experience is called the 1v1 ladder. It has historically been marketed, simultaneously, to both casuals and professionals as the true Starcraft experience.
Had SC2 not had an online requirement for play I am 100% sure professionals would have left battle.net for an iccup-like clone in the game's first year of existence. Such were the legitimacy problems of Blizzard's approach to the one true casual-competitive-compromise Starcraft experience.
What I dislike the most about this whole process is that it ended up failing to appease most of the people in the two demographics it tried to simultaneously cater to. The professionals half-despise the game. The casuals half-despise watching the professionals play the game (cause if one thing's certain it's that MBS and unlimited selection sure as hell didn't turn these casuals into regular 1v1 RTS players).
Half-despise is a strong word. I should rather say... everybody shits on the game but at the same time defends the above averageness of the entertainment value it provides. Hell, I watch SC2 myself and I tried to be a progamer in the game. It's a good, above average, esports game.
The only problem about the game is that it's not great.
The company behind it maintain an irrational fear of scaring away casuals by making big changes. What they fail to take into account, in my opinion, is that the demographic which regularly plays the 1v1 competitive mode of their game are the most hardcore demographic you will find in gaming. Their game already is the hardest and most stressful game in the world after Brood War -- whether it has MBS, unlimited selection and smartcasting or not. Casuals will not suddenly and magically start flocking to the SC2 ladder in LotV whatever they do.
In this context one could make the claim that Blizzard are being highly irrational in their worries and in their refusal to make bigger changes to the competitive 1v1-mode of their RTS. The hardcore gamers that regularly play the game want more depth to it, and the casual gamers that view the game but never touch the game itself want to be entertained as best as possible. Both demographics want the same thing. Only Blizzard worry about scaring away a demographic that doesn't even exist for the relevant game mode.
On April 30 2014 02:26 404AlphaSquad wrote: I actually agree with the vod? Am I a hardcore or do I just know what good design of a game is?
Neither. You just don't know or can't imaging anything else. But maybe you can enlighten me why you think it's good design. Though please skip the skill for skill's sake part.
Well BW worked out nice imo. Sure it was hard and frustrating but it worked. All the things he listed in the video were intended by Blizzard. It was a specific design choice from the developers to prevent army clumping by only allowing players to select 12 units. It was intended that you can only select 1 building. It was intended that you had to send your scvs mining. They could have easily decide to implement those things but decided not to. And it all worked out. There werent nearly as many upsets in BW as in sc2 right now. Because SC2 is too random and doesnt reward practice as much as bw there will never be a true BONJWA. So my conclusion is that their design decisions in BW were superior.
So you base your judgment on the results rather than the mechanics themselves. My problem with all those things you mentioned is that you don't actually notice them. You just realize a while later that for some reason one guy has a bigger army than the other which just leaves the conclusion that the first guy macro'd better even though you couldn't see any of it earlier. Which leads me to some questions. Do you think BW can be improved? Do you think the game would be more entertaining if the players could spend more time microing their armies?
BW can definitely be improved.
The thing is that in terms of INFORMATIONAL complexity, BW and SC2 are pretty much the same.
But in term of MECHANICAL complexity, BW had higher comeback ratio because you can depend on your mechanics.
On April 30 2014 02:26 404AlphaSquad wrote: I actually agree with the vod? Am I a hardcore or do I just know what good design of a game is?
Neither. You just don't know or can't imaging anything else. But maybe you can enlighten me why you think it's good design. Though please skip the skill for skill's sake part.
Well BW worked out nice imo. Sure it was hard and frustrating but it worked. All the things he listed in the video were intended by Blizzard. It was a specific design choice from the developers to prevent army clumping by only allowing players to select 12 units. It was intended that you can only select 1 building. It was intended that you had to send your scvs mining. They could have easily decide to implement those things but decided not to. And it all worked out. There werent nearly as many upsets in BW as in sc2 right now. Because SC2 is too random and doesnt reward practice as much as bw there will never be a true BONJWA. So my conclusion is that their design decisions in BW were superior.
So you base your judgment on the results rather than the mechanics themselves. My problem with all those things you mentioned is that you don't actually notice them. You just realize a while later that for some reason one guy has a bigger army than the other which just leaves the conclusion that the first guy macro'd better even though you couldn't see any of it earlier. Which leads me to some questions. Do you think BW can be improved? Do you think the game would be more entertaining if the players could spend more time microing their armies?
BW can definitely be improved.
The thing is that in terms of INFORMATIONAL complexity, BW and SC2 are pretty much the same.
But in term of MECHANICAL complexity, BW had higher comeback ratio because you can depend on your mechanics.
That's not true Xiphos. Starbow has more comeback potential than SC2 and the mechanics are the same. There is no smartcast in Starbow because the community right now can't handle it, and this is where I completely agree with Lalush...People seem to hate smartcast on principle alone, cite the "games should not need mechanical skill" argument and then refuse to accept the truth. I'd like to see what some of the people arguing against Lalush have to say. So far the discussion is brilliant by the way guys, keep it up!
As always your just making up random statements with no support at all. Its based on no theoretical logical and I would rather argue that the empircal evidence doesn't support your random comments.
On April 30 2014 02:26 404AlphaSquad wrote: I actually agree with the vod? Am I a hardcore or do I just know what good design of a game is?
Neither. You just don't know or can't imaging anything else. But maybe you can enlighten me why you think it's good design. Though please skip the skill for skill's sake part.
Well BW worked out nice imo. Sure it was hard and frustrating but it worked. All the things he listed in the video were intended by Blizzard. It was a specific design choice from the developers to prevent army clumping by only allowing players to select 12 units. It was intended that you can only select 1 building. It was intended that you had to send your scvs mining. They could have easily decide to implement those things but decided not to. And it all worked out. There werent nearly as many upsets in BW as in sc2 right now. Because SC2 is too random and doesnt reward practice as much as bw there will never be a true BONJWA. So my conclusion is that their design decisions in BW were superior.
So you base your judgment on the results rather than the mechanics themselves. My problem with all those things you mentioned is that you don't actually notice them. You just realize a while later that for some reason one guy has a bigger army than the other which just leaves the conclusion that the first guy macro'd better even though you couldn't see any of it earlier. Which leads me to some questions. Do you think BW can be improved? Do you think the game would be more entertaining if the players could spend more time microing their armies?
BW can definitely be improved.
The thing is that in terms of INFORMATIONAL complexity, BW and SC2 are pretty much the same.
But in term of MECHANICAL complexity, BW had higher comeback ratio because you can depend on your mechanics.
That's not true Xiphos. Starbow has more comeback potential than SC2 and the mechanics are the same. There is no smartcast in Starbow because the community right now can't handle it, and this is where I completely agree with Lalush...People seem to hate smartcast on principle alone, cite the "games should not need mechanical skill" argument and then refuse to accept the truth. I'd like to see what some of the people arguing against Lalush have to say. So far the discussion is brilliant by the way guys, keep it up!
1. StarBow have MORE informational complexity than SC2 which forces you to think more (See high ground advantage).
2. StarBow have a HIGHER micro potential units than SC2 with Reavers, Lurkers, Vultures, Carriers, etc.
Because of the two reasons above, StarBow's comback density far surpasses SC2's.
And because of #2, BW's mechanical prowess gives advantage to those with more practices. Many people think that ONLY MBS, Automine, and unlimited unit select are what constitute mechanics but the core DESIGN of the units themselves also factors into the category.
On April 30 2014 02:26 404AlphaSquad wrote: I actually agree with the vod? Am I a hardcore or do I just know what good design of a game is?
Neither. You just don't know or can't imaging anything else. But maybe you can enlighten me why you think it's good design. Though please skip the skill for skill's sake part.
Well BW worked out nice imo. Sure it was hard and frustrating but it worked. All the things he listed in the video were intended by Blizzard. It was a specific design choice from the developers to prevent army clumping by only allowing players to select 12 units. It was intended that you can only select 1 building. It was intended that you had to send your scvs mining. They could have easily decide to implement those things but decided not to. And it all worked out. There werent nearly as many upsets in BW as in sc2 right now. Because SC2 is too random and doesnt reward practice as much as bw there will never be a true BONJWA. So my conclusion is that their design decisions in BW were superior.
So you base your judgment on the results rather than the mechanics themselves. My problem with all those things you mentioned is that you don't actually notice them. You just realize a while later that for some reason one guy has a bigger army than the other which just leaves the conclusion that the first guy macro'd better even though you couldn't see any of it earlier. Which leads me to some questions. Do you think BW can be improved? Do you think the game would be more entertaining if the players could spend more time microing their armies?
BW can be improved sure. Like any game its not perfect. But believe me without smartcasting and unlimited unit selection and fights that werent over in 15-20 seconds, people microed their armies.
On April 30 2014 06:19 Laertes wrote: No I agree xiphos that's bullshit and people who want that need to understand the true implications of those systems.
Edit: I feel I should be making myself clear because it sounds like I am saying "practicing harder is bullshit" which is actually a really stupid thing to say. Unlike a lot of the people who dislike MBS I think that if you put more time into something it should reward you. People who don't like mechanical limitations hate them because they aren't good enough(similarly to how people who can't play chess think chess sucks, people areal ways looking to manipulate circumstance and validate that they are worth something despite their shortcomings and the sooner you understand that about yourself the better.) But in reality if someone puts more time into something than you should be better than you. Mechanics are important to a game like starcraft and the hole they leave in games like starbow and starcraft is not an easy void to fill. However, people don't like it, and are under the impression that it should not the focus and so who am I to disagree?
I don't fight the trend, you can't do it, it'll leave you in a wasteland where it is you alone and you can't survive unless you admit Defeat. Understand the implications of what you say is all I ask. Xiphos, for example, seems to hate mechanics because they keep him out of platinum, little aware that if he had practiced harder instead of forming an ideology around his suffering he might have alleviated it.
Now where did I displayed that because I'm goddamn interested.
I actually think you just have to ask yourself why you appreciate the "real sport" X. IMO people like real sports cause they allow for a lot of differences in the "mechanics" part (technique, etc). It is awesome to see a football team like real madrid play (huehue) cause you clearly can see they are better than your local team. Obviously they include more strategy too, but you as (casual) viewer couldn't care less for that part, all you see is c. ronaldo do his stuff and the goal cause of it. And yeah it is awesome. Why exactly do people think that everybody should have the right to do the same as c ronaldo without massive training? Isn't it trivial then? I actually think the strategy part doesn't have to be that deep to make a good esports. I mean there will always be some sort of strategy in EVERY game with rules (even the multitask games have some sort of strategy).
'The company behind it maintain an irrational fear of scaring away casuals by making big changes. What they fail to take into account, in my opinion, is that the demographic which regularly plays the 1v1 competitive mode of their game are the most hardcore demographic you will find in gaming. Their game already is the hardest and most stressful game in the world after Brood War -- whether it has MBS, unlimited selection and smartcasting or not. Casuals will not suddenly and magically start flocking to the SC2 ladder in LotV whatever they do.'
However all these attempts to cater to people who in reality aren't the primary Starcraft demographic do nothing to improve the experience for the more hardcore/competitive-oriented people who make up a hell of a lot of the active playerbase, now more so than ever.
This isn't so much just to do with mechanics, but various other things such as removing w/l, mid-season demotions etc which I see as pretty transparent attempts to make people who suck at the game/have a horrible mindset stick around for a bit longer.
As I said earlier in this thread, the amount of monotonous/repetitive actions you should have to preform, well I'm not sure where to arbitrarily draw that line. On the other hand it should require a roughly even mechanical baseline that stretches across all the three races, races 'having an identity' shouldn't mean they are a fuckload easier to play.
Flash had made so many units and spent so much time making units from barracks that he couldn't even stimhack them all SC2-style to the base, so they just marched on move command and still won because Flash's macro was just that good.
This is also the reason why smaller armies could win in BW more easily, because smaller armies were always more efficient as players would spend less time building units and more time microing and focusing on the battle.
What is fun or interesting about spending most of your time making units? Wouldn't it be better if you could spend that time actually fighting your battles? I understand the appeal of pristine macro I just don't understand obsessing about it. Wouldn't you prefer actually seeing what a guy does more than the results of it?
Because it created a dynamic where some players who were better at micro would actually choose to engage with smaller armies and create a tempo game, where other players would opt for larger armies and timing attacks.
If every player could optimally micro and macro at the same time, what happens is both players will opt for 200/200 macro games because it is the safest thing to do.
However without it, players who have good micro MUST attack early because their advantage will diminish as time goes on and players who are better with larger armies and timing attacks will eventually always win. This is not the same as racial imbalance in SC2, where a race must attack early. This was player-type imbalance, each race was very good late game, so you just had players who had different styles.
This is why Bisu vs Flash was always interesting. Bisu was a player that almost never fought with maxed armies, he would skirmish all over the map constantly all game so that the other player wouldn't be able to macro. Flash was the opposite, he would just defend and defend and defend until he could find the optimal time to attack with his deathball.
So an exciting Flash game would be one where he would be confined to 3 bases, and Protoss on 5-6, and then you just watch Flash in 5 minutes decimate base after base with perfect maxed army control. An exciting Bisu game was when his probe would just be alive all game killing drones and blocking hatcheries while a dt would be racking up 40 kills.
This meant that even though Bisu's PvT wasn't as good as Flash's TvP, Bisu always had the X factor (the ability to play perfectly in ACE matches) that would allow him to win most games against Flash when it mattered.
Without these limitations it would have been impossible to put Flash on the backfoot, because Flash would always have enough mechanics to counter. Flash's micro is actually amazing, but his ability to deal with tempo games is not as good as Bisu. In fact the best tempo player by far in BW was Bisu and BW's limitations allowed players like him to reach the top and actually create exciting micro games, not diminish them.
Now that you've seen an a-move BW game, I would very much appreciate you watched this whole game to see what I mean by the dynamic that it created. Every single game was just sooooo different depending on the players and that's one of the things that kept the crowds drawn in, I have watched a lot of SC2 but its still nothing like this. Normally TvP is quite deathbally, but Bisu vs Flash TvP was always the complete opposite. Flash made many mistakes this game, which was not typical of him, and it was Bisu's constant pressure that caused that to happen.
I used to be one of those naysayers who felt that such mechanical restrictions were essential to make a game better, but I now think it depends. It depends on the vision set by the creators, by the audience they are catering to, the reach they expect. This would also imply that it is era-dependent, cos different generations will perceive difficulty differently.
Regarding today's game design paradigms, I feel that games such as SC2, aiming for the e-sports scene, having global reach and not just catering to a hardcore group of old schoolers (like me), have to at least fulfill these principles:
Be fun to watch (not just fun to play)
This is usually accomplished by giving the game strong "micro" potential. It enables the pros be able to distinguish themselves from the rest of the lower level players too. Let's admit it, we get hooked onto any game or sport when we see that awesome micro moment. Boxer got me into the SC scene when I watched his WCG play against Blackman (which by modern standards is so horrible to watch now). I'm aware that macro strategy is amazing, but that is something much more subtle and may require some prior experience to appreciate. I mean, how many games have you come across that is fun to play, but is just sleep-inducing to watch someone else play? It is probably the reason why Chess isn't as popular as some other games out there (mind you, I like Chess). Look at Football (or "Soccer"), Basketball, Hockey, Tennis, all rife with micro potential. I can't understand the popularity of Cricket and Golf though, so I'm not saying I'm definitely right with this.
I believe it can also be accomplished when the game has some degree of uncertainty. Part of why I think I prefer watching BW over SC2 is because of the suspense that comes from not being able to fully predict an outcome of a micro battle. In LoL (*gasp* I mentioned it!), sometimes you see fights that should have belonged to one team but a reversal happens. In a fighting game, someone blocks every single attack with surgical precision and counters, taking the game. Protoss makes an unlikely hold against a Zerg flood. Moments like these makes it all worth watching.
Be accessible
A game like Chess or StarCraft is really difficult, but with the right teacher and the right approach, the learning journey can be fun. If you make your game like Dwarf Fortress, don't expect people to get to the good parts before they leave the game. Good tutorial systems, well-written guides or community figures come in really well here. I'm not saying to make the game easy, as indicated in the next point...
Be impossible to humanly master, but not through "draconian" means
Tune the difficulty to match the targeted audiences' skill levels through playtesting. You can make a game difficult to play without resorting to "artificial", interface-limiting means, but resorting to adding more elements to keep track of, or rewarding/punishing certain styles for example. I wouldn't know all of the ways to do this since I'm not the ultimate authority on this subject. An e-sports game like SC2 has this a bit easier, since the opponent is your main difficulty, but you still can make the game too easy.
I think that Valve is the only game company I've seen (doesn't mean it's the only one) that seems to embrace these principles, even if it's a non-competitive single-player game. I also think that SC2 has done a great job so far, but there is always room for improvement.
Cause D.K. came from Warhammer like balance designer, and Warhammer and 100000 parts and addons are sucks, cause it's not strategy it's shit of elephant. People really work on SC: broodwar, now we see that blizzard only want money on brand names. They don't want create smth true, new, conceptual. Blizzard are dead for me.
Funny video but he's a bit ignorant. I've never liked you Jakatak. I always get the feeling you always post to get attention drawn towards yourself. Just my opinion of years of seeing you post around here.
The constraints aren't arbitrary in that they have an arbitrary impact on the game. Only selecting a subset of units or buildings forces a player to make a judgement call on where to place their focus. There may be many subtle implications of every constraint in the game that are important, but might be hard to realize at a passing glance.
I couldnt be arsed to play a game which would require a stupid amount of microing ur macro like bw if i have the chance to play sc2.
To win u need so many things: 1) startup strategy (bo) 2) efficient micro 3) efficient macro 4) scouting 5) harassment 6) decision making in clutch situations 7) long term strategy (unit composition) 8) army control (control-groups etc.)
The macro part is still quite demanding and like jak said: needing to spend more apm on trivial marco elements does actually add nothing to the gameplay.
fully agree
PS: some of the bw nostalgians will always be mad about this. nothing u can do
Flash had made so many units and spent so much time making units from barracks that he couldn't even stimhack them all SC2-style to the base, so they just marched on move command and still won because Flash's macro was just that good.
This is also the reason why smaller armies could win in BW more easily, because smaller armies were always more efficient as players would spend less time building units and more time microing and focusing on the battle.
But in that video it directly contradicts what you claim. So.....?
Anyway, the macro in that game is about even or slightly less than the macro in SC2 with regard to units popping out at the same time, which really tells us how easy macro has gotten. I think if a Terran can do that and outzerg a ZERG in brood war, there's no reason they can't do the same with the mule bonus in SC2. 8 raxes? Make 16 in sc2 with reactors and do the same thing, only this time on full stim because of 500 unit control groups.
Remember that chess has a severe mechanical restriction in that you're only allow to move one piece and then your opponent can move another before you can move again.
"arbitrary" restrictions like limited control groups and no such things as reactors are essentially similar to that chess restriction. Timers on unit production are another "arbitrary" restriction. So is building time, mining time, mineral cost, etc.
EPT
