|
I don't think that allowing unlimited units to be selected at a time will remove the micro element of the game at all.
In SC1 an enemy could select 12 zealots and attack-move them at you. You could then use mirco to kill the lot with your 2-4 marines (an action that is not possible if you simply attack-move back at them).
I believe this will hold true for unlimited man selection. Micro>Bulk attack-click.
All this will do is make crap players worse as they learn to rely on mass unit selection. Experienced players will still micro their way to the win.
Your thoughts?
|
The same, as I pointed our in the other thread the hard counter design will make micro a requirement in mixed arm warfare to win. You need to tell each of your units what they should attack to make the most use of their strenghts and the enemy weaknesses.
|
I wouldn't mind it under the condition that there is not a key/macro that instantly selects all the units you control (thinking of what 'Q' does in Command & Conquer 3). It would make those who don't have a hotkey for their entire attacking army have to shift/ctrl-click their army for poor micromanagement.
|
Contrary to CC3 you can't attack move your entire army and expect it to win in Starcraft, no Mammuth tanks or similar that just roll over everything else >.>
|
If you think about it, maintaining several hotkeys of units will still be the best way... to allow easy access to control a single type of unit. Like '3' is all your (scout like units that do large damage after a period of time) to kill BCs, where '1' is for zealots to kill marines, and stuff...
So... for me... I'd select all my units.... attack move... then proceed to selecting individual groups to properly direct them instead of blindly attacking.
I'd be more scared of blizzard making units too 'smart' and say making their AI automatically attack what's weakest... that'd be a mistake But if the lack of micro in the last 'big battle' from the demo is any indication... that won't be the case.
|
I think they will make the units able to handle their most common abilities but won't do anything in a terribly smart manner (except pathfinding).
|
|
it's harder to send/select 2525 units to attack someplace, when you can just select 12 at them at once. Harder is better that easier tasks.. (no don't, argue medics auto-heal....sigh...
Speed has been apart of starcraft so long, multitasking, i would be sad to see them remove it.
|
Why don't we just remove auto attack and make you only able to select one unit at once if UI handicaps are the way to go...
I think alot of you hardcore Starcraft players have played with the 12 unit limit so long that you've begun to think that it's impossible to have a good game without it. I truly think there are more imporant things you can frenzy click away at then trying to select your 100 units and 5 gateways.
Easier is better at mundane tasks, leave skill to stuff that matters.
|
On May 21 2007 09:30 Zironic wrote: Why don't we just remove auto attack and make you only able to select one unit at once if UI handicaps are the way to go...
I think alot of you hardcore Starcraft players have played with the 12 unit limit so long that you've begun to think that it's impossible to have a good game without it. I truly think there are more imporant things you can frenzy click away at then trying to select your 100 units and 5 gateways.
Easier is better at mundane tasks, leave skill to stuff that matters.
We like Starcraft.. we like the feel of the game, sure we are scared about change.. And we definatly don't want the basics to change, how we play the game, because that is what made it great after all.. Doing all the teadious tasks is fun!! Its a big part of the game, overlooking doing the "tiny" tasks can make you loose. We WOW at Nada and the progamers, because they do all theese tiny things SO MUCH FASTER THAN US, and it makes them great! It is what "skill" in SC is, doing the micro good, haveing a "strategy" or countering it, and keeping the macro machine going at all times. And it makes us want to try harder and play faster
But its all personal opinions of course..
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
The problem is that when I select a large bunch of units, I expect only 12 to get selected. I play BW for 5 years, it's hardcoded. I don't think that adapting to change would be easy. And it's something that affects gaming. I commonly split my toss army into 12's (PvT) just selecting a shitload of zealots and hotkeying the result. I don't want to select 60 zealots at once.
|
agreeing with DeCoup, most people want max 12 unit/group just because they're used to it.
And to maximizer your micro you need to split it up in groups anyway, like in tvz, you would still have atleast marine gruop, medicgrup, tankgroup, vesselgroup.
And when you can send all units to attack at once, theres more time to spread units manually, and stuff like that.
|
So basicly the Gosus and the Pros would still make the army out of small groups and kick the asses of the newbies and casuals that just gather their army and do attack move?
|
On May 21 2007 10:30 Zironic wrote: So basicly the Gosus and the Pros would still make the army out of small groups and kick the asses of the newbies and casuals that just gather their army and do attack move?
Probably. Although I think that pros might still incorporate gigantic groupings in bigger battles to send their army in the right direction (meaning that they basically grab their entire army, attack+move to the enemy army, and then start splitting stuff up there [like when I'm playing PvT I always get all my groups, attack+move, then I start hotkeying Zealots and High Templars on the fly so I can send them to kill some Tanks, cast Psionic Storm, etc])
|
On May 21 2007 10:30 Zironic wrote: So basicly the Gosus and the Pros would still make the army out of small groups and kick the asses of the newbies and casuals that just gather their army and do attack move?
Naturally. It doesn't matter if the newbie has to click 1 or 8 times to send in his units to the meatgrinder they are all going to die as he watches anyway.
A pro may click hundreds of times in a large battle, very few of those clicks will be for all of the units together.
|
Another thing I'd like to see in SC2: make it so that manual retargetting doesn't restart cooldown/firing animation delays like the stupid goons in bw. The unit should proceed with whatever it is doing, and the target for its melee/projectile/whatever attack should be determined exactly at the moment it delivers the attack. I get really pissed when I lose in goon vs vult situations if I manually target them at the mines the vults are trying to stick infront of the goons, and they stand there and die like idiots instead of shooting the damn thing.
|
On a side note, and this doesn't have anything to do with sc2, Carriers fight a LOT less efficiently than they could've been if the interceptors could seamlessly retarget things. Though in BW at least, it would make them positively overpowered. The firepower of 12 carriers operating at full capacity would obliterate almost any amount of gols; If you could make each 2 carriers attack a different gol within range, while running away, and interceptors could retarget np, gols would continually die at a rate of about 3 per second. Of course, not even the pros can micro like that, so I guess that's kind of moot point anyway.
|
That could be one of the reasons I think they've removed the Carriers from the game. Filling the screen with fast moving flyers was probably not the greatest idea coming out of blizzard.
But ye, making the units wait until they have finished their current attack before following your next order would probably be good for all units with long attack animations. I'm not sure if any unit like that is left in the game though, all the units I've seen so far have really short attack animations and the game designers have said they want all the animations to be "fast and tight".
|
What I meant is that if a goon is presently trying to fire unit A within range and you retarget it to unit B, also within range, the attack animation should continue, not restart. When the bolt fires away it will go towards B, but it shouldn't cause the goon to be so dumb and restart itself. In fact I had many cases where I lost goon vs goon fights by trying to micro it too much, and I think it's only because of this reason.
but yea, it's probably irrelevant for SC2. It makes very little difference for fast-attacking units like hyds.
|
On May 21 2007 09:30 Zironic wrote: Why don't we just remove auto attack and make you only able to select one unit at once if UI handicaps are the way to go...
I think alot of you hardcore Starcraft players have played with the 12 unit limit so long that you've begun to think that it's impossible to have a good game without it. I truly think there are more imporant things you can frenzy click away at then trying to select your 100 units and 5 gateways.
Easier is better at mundane tasks, leave skill to stuff that matters.
My opinion exactly.
And someone saying "having to do all that small shit by yourself is good because it requires more skill/speed" is completely ridiculous IMHO. A person saying that should maybe play SC with a gamepad and without using hotkeys at all so that it's harder and requires more skill, which is a good thing, isn't it? No... SC is good because of other qualities, and not that.
For example, If you play Zerg, and the game takes a long time, you can't hotkey all your hatcheries and units in SC. This is a big weakness. Plus, it also sucks when you have like 48 zerglings and have to waste 4 out of 10 hotkeys just for those damn lings. And then press 1a2a3a4a. Great. While you're doing all this shit, more important things are happening in the game that you can't take care of at that precise moment (for example units dying somewhere that shouldn't have died). Because you had to select several units by hand somewhere on the map for 2 seconds, you had 2 seconds less to control your units in an important battle. This applies to all players of all skill levels. Even if you had 600 APM, you'd still waste time that you won't have in another more important situation.
If SC were a program you'd use every day, you'd say its interface sucks, but in SC you say that it rocks because it requires skill. But the point of the game is not the interface, it's the game itself that one should master. The game should require skill to master, not the interface. The difficulty of the game should only be a direct result of the skill of your opponent, and not because you are forced to do stupid things over and over again. That's how every sport works, btw. You don't play Tennis with an extremely heavy racket because it then requires more skill. No, you play it with an extremely light one so it doesn't interfere with your playing.
|
|
|
|