|
On May 22 2007 08:00 BluzMan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2007 07:53 Zironic wrote:On May 22 2007 07:46 Equinox_kr wrote:On May 21 2007 16:21 jtan wrote:
I'm for it.
More time for strategic play simply.
No reason for not including it really, other than that we are used to do it the hard way. Don't call me an SC2 whiner, but I get the feeling that multiple building selection will make this game into War3. Believe me, I'm the one who wants an awesome game as much as any other guy, but I think that this basically kills off most of the skill involved in play. Sure, it'll make room for more awesome gigantic battles in the middle of the map, but it'll shorten the gap between the pros and the casual/noob players greatly to the point that it makes me go "ehh" There would need to become alot more changes for it to become like WC3. First you would have to add powerful units with game dominating abilities that become stronger as the game progresses (Heroes) Then you would have to add neutral units spread around the map that can be killed for additional resources and make your powerful unit even more powerful (creeps) Then you would have to add alot of units that automatically make your own army stronger and the enemies weaker (spell casters) Then you need to raise the HP of all the units and make each unit a massive investment so every minor skirmish can decide the entire game And then you would have to add a silly upkeep feature that actively tries to prevent good macro from being a good strategy. Then you would have turned SC into WC3. You forgot town portal and that was one of the most dumbdown features of War3.
:O
It's not a dumbdown feature.. it's a totally different game from sc. They intentionally added RPG elements to it, to create an original and new kind of RTS game. Town portal fits perfectly within that game. People should stop comparing it to SC and burn it down. I like sc way better than wc3 myself, but if wc3 was really such an awful game as many of you claim it is, than there wouldn't be such a big wc3 community, including a pro scene. It's like a Go player saying Chess sucks 
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
It nearly eliminated harass and severely hampered decision making - even though it was 350 gold, you could still come of a losing fight nearly unscathed, especially in the early versions where it was instant. 350 gold might seem alot (3 footmen and stuff), but these 350 gold didn't give experience to your enemy which was far superior.
The thing that really made me quit WC3 was not the economy or upkeep - it kept the emphasis on micro, which was indeed just "different", not worse than SC. But the sheer fact that I couldn't split my army or gain any kind of map control, and that micro was down to just controlling a single large army bulk.
I was in top500 RT, level 38 random which, of course, doesn't mean I was gosu at War3, but pretty much guarantees I had some degree of understanding how this game worked.
|
On May 22 2007 08:14 Smorrie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2007 08:00 BluzMan wrote:On May 22 2007 07:53 Zironic wrote:On May 22 2007 07:46 Equinox_kr wrote:On May 21 2007 16:21 jtan wrote:
I'm for it.
More time for strategic play simply.
No reason for not including it really, other than that we are used to do it the hard way. Don't call me an SC2 whiner, but I get the feeling that multiple building selection will make this game into War3. Believe me, I'm the one who wants an awesome game as much as any other guy, but I think that this basically kills off most of the skill involved in play. Sure, it'll make room for more awesome gigantic battles in the middle of the map, but it'll shorten the gap between the pros and the casual/noob players greatly to the point that it makes me go "ehh" There would need to become alot more changes for it to become like WC3. First you would have to add powerful units with game dominating abilities that become stronger as the game progresses (Heroes) Then you would have to add neutral units spread around the map that can be killed for additional resources and make your powerful unit even more powerful (creeps) Then you would have to add alot of units that automatically make your own army stronger and the enemies weaker (spell casters) Then you need to raise the HP of all the units and make each unit a massive investment so every minor skirmish can decide the entire game And then you would have to add a silly upkeep feature that actively tries to prevent good macro from being a good strategy. Then you would have turned SC into WC3. You forgot town portal and that was one of the most dumbdown features of War3. :O It's not a dumbdown feature.. it's a totally different game from sc. They intentionally added RPG elements to it, to create an original and new kind of RTS game. Town portal fits perfectly within that game. People should stop comparing it to SC and burn it down. I like sc way better than wc3 myself, but if wc3 was really such an awful game as many of you claim it is, than there wouldn't be such a big wc3 community, including a pro scene. It's like a Go player saying Chess sucks
I just know that although I play Warcraft 3 I only play UMS. I preferred the melee gameplay in Starcraft vastly to the gameplay in WC3. However I don't think Starcrafts archaic interface is vital to that gameplay.
I was just trying to list all the things that made Warcraft 3 so different to Starcraft so people would realize it wasn't the interface of all things that made Warcraft 3 a game much more about micro then macro.
|
BluzMan > I think everyone will agree with you that macro is not only about mass clicking and that the term has largely been misused. Allowing multiple building selection will still not make it easy to have an Oovesque macro, but you can't deny that it would help a lot (in SC1 at least), and especially all the micro-oriented players because their main problem is that they HAVE to come back to their base in order to build units right during the middle of a battle. And with multi-selection, they pretty much wouldn't have to.
That's the key point, really. Clicking buildings takes time. Every 15-20 secs or so, as soon as you have a decent number of production buildings, you have to come back to your base in order to macro properly. But with multi-buildings selection why would you even come back? You could just hit a few keyboard buttons and build 4 tanks, 6 vultures and that's it. And if you add workers' minerals rally points, then you could just build SCVs out of all your CCs too, with two more keys. OK, you'd still have to build depots and stuff, but honestly that wouldn't be even 10% of the time you spend controlling your units. Actually, it wouldn't change that much during early game, but at midgame/endgame you'd be able to stay most of the time with your units and wouldn't have to make choices between micro and economy, which -- once again -- is something pretty fucking awesome in my opinion.
|
On May 22 2007 07:14 mcmascote wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2007 07:08 Smorrie wrote:Casual players don't need multiple building selection options.. they need a good storyline, good graphics and awesome cinematics OMG, I LOVE YOU! Sooooooo simple.. wc3 noobs/kids from other games willl buy and play sc2 no matter what, like they did to wc3.. but if the game is too easy they will stop playing it (migrate to the "new wow") or they will play DOTA using SC2 engine. why not make a good game? MACRO + MICRO IS ALL THAT I ASK. PLEASE BLIZZARD, DON'T FUCK MACRO PLEASE, PLEASE! THE GAME CAN BE MORE PINK THAN TESTIE EX-GIRLFRIEND, I WONT CARE, SIMPLE BALANCE MICRO AND MACRO.. TY.
EHEH, i guess i fully agree here.
And people coming from War3, as it seems they are legion in these threads (coming from S&G, general forums, new accounts...), please skip your turn on this one and keep your marvelous ideas to ruin or 'revolutionize' progaming on the next one game. War4 will be even more friendly, don't worry. I can understand you feel quite an urge to change the game you play, thats not a reason, cause as its said above you ll probably do the same in some months.
Seriously, macro is a pure component of the game ; i barely play anymore, i am like 120 apm so thats not like 'i am mass practicing i will own more if its not newb friendly'. It will reduce the skill gap for sure. Everything that reduce the skill gap is kinda bad apart from some non-major smart changes (i can agree with some ideas here and there). Everything that complicate the game is not a good thing also, cause it seems to me sc found the good balance.
edit : i think PoP above me explained perfectly why macro is a so important aspect of the game
Also to address the issue of the depth of strategies and build orders : if you think starcraft has reached a limit point in the understanding of the game i'm sorry but i have to fully disagree. I'm quite sure you would have said EXACTLY the same thing X years ago, choose X between 1 and 5. It keeps evolving even its mostly variations of the existing bos. And its also permanently cycling, depending on trends, styles, adaptations. Actually i see the bw openings a lot like the chess ones, with a big database of viable options, a lot of variants, and changing trends (especially in progaming, which influences the whole community).
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
2 PoP:
Well, you're mostly right, but I'd have to disagree that pure production takes a great time load. A great click load - yes, but the most time-consuming thing in macro is placing buildings because in includes much mouse hover. The hardest thing for me to execute is not producing from 10+ gateways (or not gateways, but I frankly don't care because I use F-keys for production, not hotkeys), but building expansion infrastructure. Making pylons/cannons/nexii fast and at the right spots seems much more time-consuming to me than pure production. But maybe that's the way it works for me, it could be different for other people.
|
On May 22 2007 08:31 Fuu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2007 07:14 mcmascote wrote:On May 22 2007 07:08 Smorrie wrote:Casual players don't need multiple building selection options.. they need a good storyline, good graphics and awesome cinematics OMG, I LOVE YOU! Sooooooo simple.. wc3 noobs/kids from other games willl buy and play sc2 no matter what, like they did to wc3.. but if the game is too easy they will stop playing it (migrate to the "new wow") or they will play DOTA using SC2 engine. why not make a good game? MACRO + MICRO IS ALL THAT I ASK. PLEASE BLIZZARD, DON'T FUCK MACRO PLEASE, PLEASE! THE GAME CAN BE MORE PINK THAN TESTIE EX-GIRLFRIEND, I WONT CARE, SIMPLE BALANCE MICRO AND MACRO.. TY. EHEH, i guess i fully agree here. And people coming from War3, as it seems they are legion in these threads (coming from S&G, general forums, new accounts...), please skip your turn on this one and keep your marvelous ideas to ruin or 'revolutionize' progaming on the next one game. War4 will be even more friendly, don't worry. I can understand you feel quite an urge to change the game you play, thats not a reason, cause as its said above you ll probably do the same in some months. Seriously, macro is a pure component of the game ; i barely play anymore, i am like 120 apm so thats not like 'i am mass practicing i will own more if its not newb friendly'. It will reduce the skill gap for sure. Everything that reduce the skill gap is kinda bad apart from some non-major smart changes (i can agree with some ideas here and there). Everything that complicate the game is not a good thing also, cause it seems to me sc found the good balance. Also to address the issue of the depth of strategies and build orders : if you think starcraft has reached a limit point in the understanding of the game i'm sorry but i have to fully disagree. I'm quite sure you would have said EXACTLY the same thing X years ago, choose X between 1 and 5. It keeps evolving even its mostly variations of the existing bos. And its also permanently cycling, depending on trends, styles, adaptations. Actually i see the bw openings a lot like the chess ones, with a big database of viable options, a lot of variants, and changing trends (especially in progaming, which influences the whole community).
Ignore the people that want SC2 to be WC4. All I want is for SC2 to be like Starcraft with better interface, better graphics and better support for UMS. New units and gameplay elements would be a great bonus.
Starcraft gameplay>Warcraft 3 gameplay imo. However Starcraft is a bit dated and Warcraft 3 has a much better map editor.
|
I've read the whole thread and PoP, I actually don't know if you are pro or con mass building selection after your last post.
And I do not agree with anyone saying that it's a good feature. I feel like saying many harsh words in this subject.
On May 22 2007 06:43 Zironic wrote:Great post by EmS.Radagast on the Battle.net forum: Show nested quote + I think the best analogy in terms of sports is to car racing. When automatic transmission for race cars reached the level where it outperformed manual control by human racers, it was introduced into racing. The pros didn't whine and #@%$! that now any driving noob can beat a pro racer because he doesnt have to know how to shift gears like a pro anymore. Instead, they adapted. Now they're arguably doing even better at all the other aspects of racing, and the competition is still as fierce as ever.
Moral of the story: The exact mechanical details of what competition is based on AREN'T what's really important for the sport.
As long as it's entertaining for the audience, and there's enough talented individuals (or teams) doing all they can to beat each other at the competition, it can be a successful televised sport. And I have news for you, the audience isn't entertained by the button mashing speed of iloveoov, it's actually by what his 34987247 units are doing on the field against those of the other guy. If you don't believe that, you are more than welcome to take another look at what they are showing you on television. Hint: No, it's not the unit queues on the Barracks, and it's not even the unit queues on the Factories. And -USUALLY- it's not even his hands constantly ninja smashing the keyboard. ZOMG.
I'm too pissed off to write a good post towards this pile of bullshit. How dare you make this forum filthy with this crap? It's so inacurrate that I don't know where to start. The only thing I'll have to say is, it has been said before, it is only impressive and entertaining to view because you know they are macroing while doing it. Everyone, yes even you, can have that awesome july'esque muta micro. But can you produce while doing it? Etc. It has been said thousands of times and really anyone defending anything of this zealotously like some people in this thread, please, please stop posting.
|
On May 22 2007 10:23 Return wrote:I've read the whole thread and PoP, I actually don't know if you are pro or con mass building selection after your last post. And I do not agree with anyone saying that it's a good feature. I feel like saying many harsh words in this subject. Show nested quote +On May 22 2007 06:43 Zironic wrote:Great post by EmS.Radagast on the Battle.net forum: I think the best analogy in terms of sports is to car racing. When automatic transmission for race cars reached the level where it outperformed manual control by human racers, it was introduced into racing. The pros didn't whine and #@%$! that now any driving noob can beat a pro racer because he doesnt have to know how to shift gears like a pro anymore. Instead, they adapted. Now they're arguably doing even better at all the other aspects of racing, and the competition is still as fierce as ever.
Moral of the story: The exact mechanical details of what competition is based on AREN'T what's really important for the sport.
As long as it's entertaining for the audience, and there's enough talented individuals (or teams) doing all they can to beat each other at the competition, it can be a successful televised sport. And I have news for you, the audience isn't entertained by the button mashing speed of iloveoov, it's actually by what his 34987247 units are doing on the field against those of the other guy. If you don't believe that, you are more than welcome to take another look at what they are showing you on television. Hint: No, it's not the unit queues on the Barracks, and it's not even the unit queues on the Factories. And -USUALLY- it's not even his hands constantly ninja smashing the keyboard. ZOMG. I'm too pissed off to write a good post towards this pile of bullshit. How dare you make this forum filthy with this crap? It's so inacurrate that I don't know where to start. The only thing I'll have to say is, it has been said before, it is only impressive and entertaining to view because you know they are macroing while doing it. Everyone, yes even you, can have that awesome july'esque muta micro. But can you produce while doing it? Etc. It has been said thousands of times and really anyone defending anything of this zealotously like some people in this thread, please, please stop posting.
What about it is innacurate? As far as I can see most of the things mentioned in that quote is pure fact, the other things are opinions. Then there's one opinion that is dressed up as fact (What audiences are entertained by).
Even with a better control system you would still need to pay alot of attention to your economy and production, just because you don't need to press 40 buttons to build 20 Zealots doesn't make the game that much easier.
Stop being pissed off, take a deep breath, look at the evolution of RTS since Starcraft and realise that change will come.
Unlimited Unit and Building selection is ALREADY in Starcraft 2, this discussion is only an attempt to make you people used to the idea. It's not like they'll take it out of the game just because you people whine alot about it.
|
|
|
From what i read in multiple SC2 threads, i come to the conclusion that the game will target the masses, so it's only natural to be noob friendly. I may not like it, but hey thats how blizz will make the $$$. I guess i'll just stick with SC:BW 4LIFE NIGGAZ 
|
On May 22 2007 10:55 Return wrote:
You can always wish.
Blizzard are notoriously known for not giving a fuck to the public opinion and making great games regardless.
|
On May 22 2007 11:06 Zironic wrote:Blizzard are notoriously known for not giving a fuck to the public opinion and making great games regardless.
You need to read this http://teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=53503
Dilling explains that because Starcraft II is being developed with professional competition in mind, the sequel's special effects will be "tight, fast, and quick" such that they don't obscure the action or slow down your computer.
|
I've read it a few times, is there any particular part you have in mind?
|
In response to Bluzman
"(Tell me the truth, have you ever seen a pro do mass re-rally in a really intense game? No, because that is close to impossible with SC1 UI."
Yes Reach does this all the time, and probably others too
|
I'd just like to say that SC2 will almost certainly have some sort of improvement to the ability to macro (multiple building selection or simlar) and Blizzard would have to be retarded not to include it (if they don't include at least WC3 level interface improvements the general public will be bewildered and the game will be marked down in most reviews), so there's no point whining about it. If you seriously think that multiple building selection is going to ruin SC2 or turn it into WC3 somehow then you are either stupid or so blindly conservative that you may as well forget about SC2 now, since you're definitely going to hate it and waste all our time constantly whining about it.
Seriously, I don't know what kind of tunnel vision you have to have to think that the lack of multiple building selection is what makes SC good or separates the newbs from the pros. It's like some kind of mass insanity. I guess it's just the usual fear of change amongst established elites.
|
On May 22 2007 10:23 Return wrote:
I've read the whole thread and PoP, I actually don't know if you are pro or con mass building selection after your last post.
You probably missed my point then. Overall I'd be totally against it in SC, and I'm against it on SC2 too unless they find a nicer, smarter way to make the player spend half his time managing his economy/production (and not just every once in a while).
|
On May 22 2007 11:53 PoP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2007 10:23 Return wrote:
I've read the whole thread and PoP, I actually don't know if you are pro or con mass building selection after your last post.
You probably missed my point then. Overall I'd be totally against it in SC, and I'm against it on SC2 too unless they find a nicer, smarter way to make the player spend half his time managing his economy/production (and not just every once in a while).
Personally as a non competetive player I would greatly prefer if the solution to the MACRO/MICRO balance is something better then making the controls limited.
|
It's ridiculous that you have to be a PRO (no less) to fucking re-rally your goddamn gateways in the middle of an intense lategame bw match. I'm also very pissed - that you people don't seem to realize how wrong that is.
LOL is it like only pros deserve to be able to re-rally since that's such a gosu brillient tactical move? does it make sense that I would have to practice for whole months for it not to take my complete attention for 15 seconds. As I pointed out before, good luck if they happen to take your cliff in that time window.
for me it's exactly the same attitude that bloodlusting ogres one at a time is pro, and stimming groups of 12 rines with one key is noob. -_-;;
|
Sweden33719 Posts
IMO you should be able to mass select buildings in order to set rally point - I am still undecided/waiting for blizzard information as to wether I think building from several buildings at once is good or not.
Btw, I'm not a pro and I always re-rally my gateways (actually I frequently forgot to, obsers often complain when I have 50 units standing by my gates/running somewhere cause I forget to change the rally point lol).
But I still change the rally a lot just I'm very forgetful ;d
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
