| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
quasi -QS-
United States109 Posts
However, it seems like a lot of players against MBS feel like Starcraft will fall apart if this was included. I just don't think an outdated UI is a key point in Starcraft's amazingness. Then again, I do enjoy the frantic pace it induces while I'm trying to micro. I'd say I really don't care which way it goes. | ||
|
ggfobster
United States298 Posts
| ||
|
Tiku
18 Posts
I'm assuming that all other production buildings for protoss will function in a similar way. They will recharge until they are ready to place a single unit each, at which time you can select the buildings and warp in the units you want with one click for each unit you want created (12 times 'Z' for 12 Zealots). They will warp in next to a building and start following it's set rally point. In the special case of Warp Gates you must also specify the unit placement within your Psionic Matrix (Pylon range). This can apparantly be done in two ways as seen in the video. Either by alternating 'Z' and mouseclicking where you want the Zealot placed, or by holding some button while clicking 'Z' (maybe shift/alt/ctrl), thus making the 'warp in Zealot' order stick to the mousepointer. After that you can click on all the locations you want the Zealots warped in whitout having to specify what you're building for every warp gate inbetween the placements. (The 4 Stalkers are done in the first way, while the 16 Zealots are done by making the warp in order stick) In my opinion allowing multiple building selection is like taking away the tediousness of production in Starcraft. This will of course make it easier to keep track of, and manage it. However, by also adding the need to specify every single unit you want to build, and removing the production queue, I think it can make for an intuitive and flexible system. Furthermore if will force you to continuously make choices about which units to build instead of letting you queue up a lot of units that may seem a good idea at the time of the queueing, but might be a bad choice at the time they are produced, and thus stopping you from developing bad habits of queueing. Long queues wasn't really much used by skilled players either, so no loss there, right? Let's say the same type of non-queueing system is applied to Terran. Protoss will still stand out in the way that they can warp in the units they need right this second, making them more likely to have the exact mix of units they want at any time. Something I think they could need as all their units are extremely specialized in addition to the fact that Protoss can usually have fewer units total. Following my though that Terran can neither queue units, and they also have to specify exactly the number of each unit they need to produce in every building even with multiple building selection. I'll illustrate what I mean with an example. You select 12 Barracks. The icons of Marines and Reapers both have a 0 in their corners indicating none of either are being built. You click 'M' 8 times, and '[insert Reaper hotkey]' 4 times. The Marine icon will show a 8 in it's corner as well as a clock timer indicating when the first Marine will be fully trained. The Reaper icon will show a 4 while also showing a clock timer for the first Reaper being fully trained. You can now check on your buildings with regular intervals to see when you need to continue training. (Or just wait for the "I'm ready" sound that the troops always make when trained.) It's highly likely that no Protoss building have a production queue, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's also the same Terran. Now, to you who are against multiple building seleciton, would it be better if they also made the changes I am proposing? How would this affect the grand scheme of things? (I have no guess about Zerg's production system. It'll probably be an ingenious one) Edit: A Little additional thing I though of later. To make Terran a bit different from Protoss, and give them an edge in another way they could actually give Terran a queue of 1 following the unit being produced, and it could also quite easily be show in the UI with another little number in a different corner of the production icons. (eg. number of units being produced in lower right corner, and number of units that are queued and will be produced after the current one finish in lower left corner. Making Terran a bit more time effective than Protoss with equal amount of buildings. All of this might get a bit off topic. I guess I'm saying it all to show that maybe the way production is being handled is being looked at in other ways to outweigh the usefulness of multiple building selection. | ||
|
gEzUS
Canada371 Posts
I dont see a valid reason to change something thats not broken. But it all depends on what your expectations are for starcraft2. Do you want starcraft to be more accessible, and gain the attention of the Supreme Commander era of RTS fans? or Keep the core gameplay mechanics that have proved to be solid for almost 10 years now. I think change is good, but i think its fair to be skeptical. | ||
|
EmS.Radagast
Israel280 Posts
Take a peek at Bisu's now famed PvZ style. Fast expo forces the zerg to expand, causing overextension, then the protoss sends in tons and tons of harassment to keep the zerg as slow as possible. Ask yourself: will this strategy really work as macro gets easier? Sure, it'll always work as long as your opponent cannot multitask well, but it becomes so much easier to counter a strategy like this as a concentration sink like macro is simplified. Having macro not just exist, but be such an important aspect of Starcraft allows for these strategies of concentration denial. Every step taken to reduce the importance of macro, such as MBS, is simply reducing the power of these strategies. And it's not just Beesuit, it's every strategy that tries to catch the opponent off guard. Drops, invisible units, attacking from multiple sides, they all work and are interesting because they tax a player's ability to multitask in addition to the tangible damage they do in game. FINALLY a decent argument for the opposing opinion! I just want to point out that in a game where everyone macros better, the loss of a given amount of workers will be exploited to a greater advantage by the opponent, which somewhat strengthens harrassment strats. Also, IMHO causing Z to overexpand works most of all because the Z can't defend both nats with all of his units, and if he fails to contain P, the amount of sunkens needs to be doubled. The amount of drone massing required also slows down Z's initial tech development, which helps P gets his massed army and tech with less disruption. It also improves P's position vs lurker containment in terms of timing because they will be able to reach goon/storm/obs faster compared to lurker/scourge/lord timing from an overexpanding zerg. The downside of fexp by P is that it accelerates the Z's progression towards mass ultra/ling, because they get the economy to support it that much faster. I feel that fexp strats by P became popular mostly because pro-level Z players got so good at countering aggressive 1 base play (same can be said for TvZ). I also want to point out that Z provides a certain amount of leeway in macro. You can "forget" to make 100% usage of your larva and unlike P or T you will not actually lose ANYTHING in production rate (= overall units produced per unit time) until there are 3 idle larvas at the hatchery and the 4th cannot be made. Obviously this feature was factored into the game's balance (In fact, it allows Z to save up and produce 9 mutas initially, which is something T and P cannot do with their air builds). Now, I don't see pro Z's as being some sort of invinicible macro machines that can't possibly be distracted from their production, DESPITE HAVING 3 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF SLACK in production management control, and the fact you can select 12 larva at a time in the lategame. It's just something to think about. I tend to believe that at the pro level, most of the effect of harassment strats, drops and such stems from the tangible economy damage as well as the psychological effect (pros know their opponents will exploit their damaged economy better so it demoralizes them even more). Furthermore, as a few people have pointed out, who really benefits? Casual players are going to want cool graphics, cool units, and a good story. Blizzard will no doubt deliver on all three. Do you really think these casual players would ever make good use of MBS in their play? I've rarely ever seen a new or casual player who didn't make 2 or less unit production facilities and fill them with queues. Is being able to select 12 buildings at once going to really alter their gameplay? And right now, we have a system that works very well for competitive play, so why change it if it's unlikely that MBS will actually benefit newer players? It may seem archaic, but as I've pointed out, Starcraft needs concentration sinks. There are lots of players sitting between the casual and hardcore competitive level. I enjoy playing 1v1 and 2v2, and I use almost all of the same strats seen in competitive play today. As I explained in previous posts, bw's micro/macro balance tends to be heavily skewed towards macro at my level because given you're already playing slowly (110-120 apm) it's usually much more effective to spend your time focusing on macro. As a result, my games become somewhat more boring. If I try to use some elaborate tactical move later on in the game (e.g. taking 24 protoss units and elevator dropping them on T's second main to kill it if he has a blind spot anywhere in it), I usually lose more than I gain simply because of the slowdown I cause to my own macroing. The result is that nobody tries doing anything interesting, past the 15 minutes mark, just to outmass the other guy, exactly what you said would happen in SC2 given the easier macro control... | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17185 Posts
On May 24 2007 02:00 gEzUS wrote: I dont see why people would want to change the way unit production and attention to macro is balanced. Many of us love starcraft because of its perfect balance between micro, macro, resource management etc.. I dont see a valid reason to change something thats not broken. But it all depends on what your expectations are for starcraft2. Do you want starcraft to be more accessible, and gain the attention of the Supreme Commander era of RTS fans? or Keep the core gameplay mechanics that have proved to be solid for almost 10 years now. I think change is good, but i think its fair to be skeptical. They're not "changing" anything. They're releasing a completely new game. When will you finally understand that? Most people here look at SC2 like it would be some kind of patch for SC:BW... | ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
EDIT: relating to non-pro games and resulting play styles: "The result is that nobody tries doing anything interesting, past the 15 minutes mark" I'd just like to add one more thing relating to the last couple of paragraphs. In the world of bnet, the lag is bad enough to damage micro in a fastest speed (the default now) game, especially as armies get larger (past 15 min mark for example). While lag doesn't affect the pros playing on LANs, it sure does affect a majority of Starcraft players out there in the world. Blizzard wants it to be played in a fun and exciting way at all levels and especially on their network. EDIT: I caught up to some of the earlier posts regarding autocasting, etc. I will say that I'm against autocasting in general. I just find it more fun to do it myself. But I'm all for allowing room for micro in all parts of the game, not just the first 15 minutes. | ||
|
Zironic
Sweden341 Posts
On May 24 2007 06:38 Blacklizard wrote: Beautiful post, EmS.Radagast. I'd just like to add one more thing relating to the last couple of paragraphs. In the world of bnet, the lag is bad enough to damage micro in a fastest speed (the default now) game, especially as armies get larger (past 15 min mark for example). While lag doesn't affect the pros playing on LANs, it sure does affect a majority of Starcraft players out there in the world. Blizzard wants it to be played in a fun and exciting way at all levels and especially on their network. I agree. In Warcraft 3 it's common to see 2 second delays on orders. That really kills all click intensive micro. I doubt Starcraft 2 will be able to fix that fact so they might go for micro that requires less intensive clicking. | ||
|
EmS.Radagast
Israel280 Posts
| ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
On May 24 2007 08:44 EmS.Radagast wrote: High latency settings really change the gameplay and for the worse. To give a few examples, 2gw zealots don't stand a chance vs a good Z on most maps without very very careful probe/zealot micro by the P, which is outright impossible on high latency. Response time is increased so HT's usually die to muta before getting a storm off with a 1 sec delay, or mutas that are stormed take one extra second to get out of the way, Muta micro and Reaver/shuttle micro in general are alot weaker with this latency, goon vs ling micro is impossible, etc. Those things are very game changing. It strengthens the relative power of mindlessly massed and attack-moved armies, which is a very bad thing in my book. All very true. I like that part of the game a lot, and high latency without a doubt ruins that part of the game. At the same time a wait screen every 30 seconds is almost as annoying... I guess there's no way to beat it except play vs ppl with good pings. | ||
|
Zironic
Sweden341 Posts
On May 24 2007 10:20 Blacklizard wrote: All very true. I like that part of the game a lot, and high latency without a doubt ruins that part of the game. At the same time a wait screen every 30 seconds is almost as annoying... I guess there's no way to beat it except play vs ppl with good pings. Making the game a bit less about extremly time sensitive micro and a bit more about larger scale movement could help a bit. | ||
|
gEzUS
Canada371 Posts
On May 24 2007 02:31 Manit0u wrote: They're not "changing" anything. They're releasing a completely new game. When will you finally understand that? Most people here look at SC2 like it would be some kind of patch for SC:BW... Dont make useless posts, you didnt add anything to this discussion. all i said was that given what weve seen from the demo From what we see in other games is that MBS doesnt work. So dont just add your 2 cent cuz you think your smarter than everyone | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
please blizzard do not allow multiple building selection instead teach people how to use the hotkeys correctly, like KOREANS do. Then people will learn how to play the game. also don't release a stratigy guide that is loaded with bullshit. ^^ | ||
|
Dendra
Croatia801 Posts
On May 21 2007 16:33 Zironic wrote: What exactly about making the game more friendly to beginners is a bad thing? Don't we all want Starcraft 2 to become the best and most popular game ever created? being fun and popular is one thing, being best rts is another. i didn't see a boxer being a champion cuz he won a beauty contest. if you can't handle doing 5things at same time during the whole game go play wc3, that's how it worked so far, guess they'll make sc2 much more noob friendly to attract all levels of customers, would be cool to add a button "noob mode", so you can turn it off and on XD whether you wanna play real sc or the pussy one where macro is based on 2clicks. | ||
|
EmS.Radagast
Israel280 Posts
from reading this thread and seeing that people actually want to select all the buildings at once... i have finally realized just how many starcraft players never learned how to play the game.... i'm so sorry =[ This is flamebait, here's mine: there is a decent chance I know more than you do about starcraft. I play the game very well thank you. I can make and use 15-20 gates in my PvT games... and yet, I very much want MBS. I'm not going to explain it all over again, I did that enough times for one thread. If you don't want MBS, that's simply your opinion. Could be that YOU prefer to play without MBS. Might be because you believe your relative position on the competitive ladder is threatened if MBS were to be included for other people to use. Honestly I don't care...just do me a favor and quit your patronizing talk. The essence of the game isn't about mashing keys. That's like thinking mathematics are about speed calculating arithmetics in your head. If you don't understand this analogy please don't bother responding, thx -_- | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5405 Posts
On May 24 2007 11:02 gEzUS wrote: Dont make useless posts, you didnt add anything to this discussion. all i said was that given what weve seen from the demo From what we see in other games is that MBS doesnt work. So dont just add your 2 cent cuz you think your smarter than everyone And what did you really add? A statement about MBS not working with no proof at all. I think you guys are blowing MBS way out of proportion... wait until we see what Blizzard decides to do. Since we've sort of figured out (or at least theorized based on videos) how the Protoss produce, it's kind of silly to think that every race won't be producing in a traditional manner. | ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
On May 24 2007 10:24 Zironic wrote: Making the game a bit less about extremly time sensitive micro and a bit more about larger scale movement could help a bit. I hear you, and you have a valid point. But it's such a delicate balance in design. I'm afraid the game could become less interesting if Macro strongly outweighs Micro, or the opposite. Perhaps they will model one race to be obviously stronger Macro-based, and another Micro-based... but that seems very limiting as well. Nah, more than likely the goal of game's design is to make SC2 as dynamic and flexible as SC. Maps will play a large part in whether early tech builds and/or early harass will be a big threat or a lost cause, but it sounds like the want early tech/harass builds and large army builds to be equally viable. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On May 24 2007 11:21 EmS.Radagast wrote: This is flamebait, here's mine: there is a decent chance I know more than you do about starcraft. I play the game very well thank you. I can make and use 15-20 gates in my PvT games... and yet, I very much want MBS. I'm not going to explain it all over again, I did that enough times for one thread. If you don't want MBS, that's simply your opinion. Could be that YOU prefer to play without MBS. Might be because you believe your relative position on the competitive ladder is threatened if MBS were to be included for other people to use. Honestly I don't care...just do me a favor and quit your patronizing talk. The essence of the game isn't about mashing keys. That's like thinking mathematics are about speed calculating arithmetics in your head. If you don't understand this analogy please don't bother responding, thx -_- I doubt you know more about the game than the Storm Observer. Also, that is the stupidest analogy in this thread, let me counter with an equally stupid analogy, pro-mechanics: That's like thinking playing the piano isn't about maintaining rhythm and ability to strike multiple keys at once while still working towards your goal (end of song). Hey, that wasn't half bad.  Edit: Wait, wait, I got one. Put TWO mathematicians together, have them work out a problem for some sort of prize. Whoever solves it first wins a hammer to flog the other mathematician with and, subsequently, wins the keys to a brand new F430. Tell me speed isn't needed then! Goddamnit that still makes sense, I give up. | ||
|
EmS.Radagast
Israel280 Posts
There is actually a button masher version of that where instead of playing a real piano you press buttons at an arcade machine, I saw a video of that once. Anyway, back to the point... A game of BW isn't supposed to be some kind of exercise where you're given a set of low-level instructions (like a build order, notes in music a pianist would follow) that you have to follow like a machine to your best mechanical ability from the beginning to the end of the game. If you actually think that you have a completely warped perception of what a strategy game is, and I'm done arguing with you. The mathematics analogy was supposed to mean that while arithmetics is part of mathematics, it's pretty trivial stuff and the way to improve in math isn't to train yourself on doing arithmetics faster, it's rather to move on towards increasingly more abstract constructs and investigate them. That has real purpose. Remembering PI to the 100th digit in your head like some savant idiot doesn't. The increase of abstraction in math increases its expressive power, like a more powerful UI increases your ability to implement complex strategic and tactical operations in an RTS game. building from 20 gates by selecting 1 building at a time is like adding up 10-digit numbers in your head instead of using a goddamn calculator. Sure there are Korean Pro Gamers / savant idiots (respectively) that can do it in 0.5 seconds, but that's NOT what mathematics are really about, and the mechanical skill of your idolized Korean Pro Gamers isn't what strategy games are really about. Korean pro level mechanics : savant idiot math. See the connection now? Tell me, how much APM do you need to play Chess at a high level? not much eh? Also, everyone can learn how to move pieces on a 8x8 board, even 4 year olds (Newbie UI). Yet the game has more skill levels than you could have hope for in BW. Explain how this is possible. Please explain to me why you would prefer to have a new game where skill depends almost completely on mechanical abilities over a game that depends more strongly on strategy. You don't seem to understand that BW itself wasn't supposed to be about super human mechanical abilities to begin with; In '98 and '99, people competed in BW, and they weren't doing as much as 200 APM. They were looking to win through superior decision making and innovative strategy. This is also Boxer's (and probably Nal_Ra's) style. Now that the game has been more or less solved, to the degree of what's practical in the game with its current UI, the focus is almost completely shifted to mechanics, but that is a DEGENERATE state for a strategy game. If there isn't any possibility to improve the strategical depth in RTS games, and bw really reached the ABSOLUTE HIGHEST possible level in that department of all possible RTS games, I suppose you have a case that there's nothing else left to compete over but mechanics, but this is an unproved statement, and the onus of proof is on you. | ||
|
mindspike
Canada1902 Posts
A huge problem with how people are looking at this issue is that they're using the current state of BW as a reference point. When button mashing overtakes innovation and strategy as winning points the game starts to lose flavor. Once that happens its time for starcraft 3. The early days of SC when innovators like Pillars and Maynard and Grrr... played were the most fun. Obviously this is a matter of opinion though so there is really no correct way to do this. | ||
| ||
|
|
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
PiGosaur Monday
Replay Cast
SOOP
SKillous vs Spirit
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
