|
On May 27 2007 17:19 Hokay wrote:
The outdated UI in starcraft is a nuisance and is a step backwards if they decide to keep it old school. It is tedious, boring and most of all not needed to add "skills" in a game. Not everyone ejoys that but I understand some do so striking a balance between the two would be nice. Less time masturbating through "factories" leaves more room for some tricky cool micro.
I think it's quite silly that some players want the game be about mashing the keyboard like a robot because it adds more "skills" to the game. Although Blizzard is sticking to it's SC roots to a certain extent, they are also trying to move forward to expand upon what they are basing their game on (SC1)
Whats outdated about it? I really want to know cuz a lot of people keep complaining.
I'm happy about unlimited unit selection, I'm happy about MBS, and hopefuly they'll have filtered selection so that you don't select your workers when you select your military units.
|
On May 26 2007 14:02 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2007 18:26 Blacklizard wrote:
Part 2
To decide whether MBS is bad you have to weigh the pros and cons. Where does MBS fit in exactly... and I mean in the SC world, not the War3 world?
-stuff snipped out-
Conclusion?
Blizzard will do what they think is right. They are smart, lucky, and stubborn. I think they\\\'ll get it right.
-snipped- Although White-ra made the game more exciting, he was penalized for taking risks. I remember wishing that White-ra had won that game because i thought he was playing in a much more fun way watch. Esports can only grow if people can watch--and what they're watching must be exciting. --snip-- Koreans have mastered the art of setting themselves up in macro positions. Fast expoing and then syncing up their gateways or hatches or barracks. That's a good technique, the problem is it that this technique is SO powerful that taking a big risk and trying to do something new and sexy can lose easily if it's not executed in a perfect manner. And even then, why would one bother attempting to try a crazy strategy if he or she knows that defending and macroing is more likely to win? Is this what you guys are trying to explain to me? Perhaps i never thought about it this way. GG, you have made an excellent point, and it seems like you are getting mine. Just know I'm also not in love with 'mashing' the keyboard. I cheese often, ask any of the other american starcraft players who i play with. Protoss has the coolest cheese in my opinion. quick wins when done in a cool way are tight. I like both the macro massing up and getting a lot of units concept just as much as i like the risky micro parts. However it seems that the player can get punished too easily in starcraft for taking risks. The player is also more easily rewarded for sitting back and massing... especially if he is a musician. We need is a new game where macro is important, but not so important that a the best players are the ones who played the safest. I don't generally enjoy watching savior play, don't get me wrong he's terrifyingly good, just not like sexy like nal ra or boxer. Does anyone know what i mean? What Starcraft 2 needs is to balance this. And balance it carefully. --snip-- a) Let the game music go with the the macroing patterns. -snip- b) Make the tech tree a little bit different from starcrafts original one. -snip-- But I'm only getting to make these combinations late game because i finished the tech tree. Perhaps we could setup an earlier tech tree system so that we can get different units out early. -snip-- c) Slow down the macroing part at the start. I think so many people get confused on how to play starcraft because things need to happen so fast right at the start. If there's no psi limit it will get very fast in the late game. d) pay close attention to the ways units are used in starcraft. There are so many different ways to abuse their size, speed, and special abilities. Give us more ways to do this. e) maybe give the mineral patches less minerals?... i'm not sure but it seems like if there were less minerals in each patch i would be forced to expand faster. This would keep it like starcraft and not like warcraft. But then again i have no control over these things. Blizzard does.
Thanks. This thread has been very good in general... and I've had my eyes opened more than once.
Nice suggestions. I've snipped some stuff from your original post so I can comment easier.
In short, yes. One main point i have is that those cool strats are too risky and the macro long game is more safe... and sadly it does sort of stagnate the strats seen in pros a bit. More variety and aggressiveness is fun to watch I think.
Your suggestions:
a: Great idea... they should do it.
b: I completely agree. Along those lines, it should be a point to allow scouting so that things won't be a rock, paper, scissors guessing game. Not sure how to do this other than floating buildings/lords and getting your probe in there before things are walled off or ranged units come out.
b, more: I think it'd be cool to have say, 5 gates set to hotkey5, 4 gates to hotkey6, 2 gates to hotkey7, etc. 5d,6d,7t, and then 8 and 9 for other tech. Lots of options. That'd be one clean way to get some of your ratios... at least close.
c: Not 100% sure exactly what you meant, but I believe you are talking about ways to bring in more new players. yup, blizzard needs to keep it popular but really competitive at high levels. This may be one way.
d: Yes, yes, and more yes.
e: Interesting, but I'm not sure how it would play out. Would lower minerals per patch cause you to be more worried about expanding and punish 1 base pressure tactics? Or would it force someone to respond to the pressure with units as opposed to just enough defense + Maynard expand? Would it reward the aggressive player more because macro players would be spread a little thinner? Actually rereading it, I think your point was to keep the expanding at the same speed as SC currently is. I guess there's no arguing with that. 
Anyway, keep the ideas flowing... I think it's a great time to come up with good ideas... SC2 may pick up a couple, you never know.
|
so does nobody like my idea of having an options menu where you can turn shit like this on or off?
example
Selection Cap 12/16/24/48/XXXX
Multiple building select On/Off
Idiot mode On/Off
etc.
i mean, im sure SC2's progamers will work out a Norm for the selections sortof like Progamers worked out norms for maps in SC and SC2, like how balanced the map has to be etc.
Nobody has said anything about this, if they have i completely missed it...
|
On May 27 2007 19:28 KodoU- wrote:
so does nobody like my idea of having an options menu where you can turn shit like this on or off?
example
Selection Cap 12/16/24/48/XXXX
Multiple building select On/Off
Idiot mode On/Off
etc.
i mean, im sure SC2's progamers will work out a Norm for the selections sortof like Progamers worked out norms for maps in SC and SC2, like how balanced the map has to be etc.
Nobody has said anything about this, if they have i completely missed it...
Well, i think this would have a lot play problems. In SC:BW for example, its annoying enough if you want to practice a certain matchup and you keep running into other players that don't play that race. If you add a slew game changing customizations, the player base that also wants to play that profile would be much much smaller. And that would be terrible.
Edit: Only option I like is a mineral option
1) Normal (1,500 per crystal)
2) High (50,000 per crystal)
The people that like money games will play money games reguardless. At least this way, they wont have to edit a lot of maps just for the sake of making it a money map.
|
Bad idea to split up the players like that. Starcraft 2 has always been about mass armies, its a refinement that they finally implement unlimited unit selection as well as MBS, both of which still do not take away from micro.
Keep settings standard for ladder play, let people do what they want on unranked custom maps.
|
On May 27 2007 22:00 yangstuh wrote:
Bad idea to split up the players like that. Starcraft 2 has always been about mass armies, its a refinement that they finally implement unlimited unit selection as well as MBS, both of which still do not take away from micro.
Keep settings standard for ladder play, let people do what they want on unranked custom maps.
Unlimited Select would greatly take away from micro i think...
Id say, a big reason people can micro so well in BW and WC3 is because of the portraits down at the bottom middle. You won't get that interface in any form in unlimited select. How can you have have 50 portraits at the bottom?
|
On May 27 2007 22:22 Amnesty wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2007 22:00 yangstuh wrote:
Bad idea to split up the players like that. Starcraft 2 has always been about mass armies, its a refinement that they finally implement unlimited unit selection as well as MBS, both of which still do not take away from micro.
Keep settings standard for ladder play, let people do what they want on unranked custom maps. Unlimited Select would greatly take away from micro i think... Id say, a big reason people can micro so well in BW and WC3 is because of the portraits down at the bottom middle. You won't get that interface in any form in unlimited select. How can you have have 50 portraits at the bottom?
Doesn't that just mean that skillfull players will have smaller groups and better micro then the poor players that have large groups and worse micro? Basicly, unlimited select would only hurt the micro of bad players and bad players probably don't have any micro to hurt.
|
On May 27 2007 22:22 Amnesty wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2007 22:00 yangstuh wrote:
Bad idea to split up the players like that. Starcraft 2 has always been about mass armies, its a refinement that they finally implement unlimited unit selection as well as MBS, both of which still do not take away from micro.
Keep settings standard for ladder play, let people do what they want on unranked custom maps. Unlimited Select would greatly take away from micro i think... Id say, a big reason people can micro so well in BW and WC3 is because of the portraits down at the bottom middle. You won't get that interface in any form in unlimited select. How can you have have 50 portraits at the bottom?
Unlimited select doesn't take away from micro, fact.
Portrait would only show for the designated subgroup within the selection.. like in WC3. It is not a problem.
|
In WC3 for the whole game you have 1-2 buildings to make a certain unit so it relly isnt any problem having multiply building selection - it dont take any skill level from the game. Then again in starcraft when you have 6-10 barract/gateways _it is a matter of skill_ how fast you can build new units while at the same time control your army. If in sc2 we will have multiply building selection then this aspect of skill will disappear and yes it will make the gap between pro and noob smaller.
Putting this option in sc2 would be like putting few button on guitar - binding some parts of a melody to them and then telling every one that you are as good guitarist as the pro one just because you can play the same melody and as good as pro just by pressing this few buttons.
The more things you have to master to become a pro the better.
|
On May 28 2007 00:44 RainSong wrote:
In WC3 for the whole game you have 1-2 buildings to make a certain unit so it relly isnt any problem having multiply building selection - it dont take any skill level from the game. Then again in starcraft when you have 6-10 barract/gateways _it is a matter of skill_ how fast you can build new units while at the same time control your army. If in sc2 we will have multiply building selection then this aspect of skill will disappear and yes it will make the gap between pro and noob smaller.
Putting this option in sc2 would be like putting few button on guitar - binding some parts of a melody to them and then telling every one that you are as good guitarist as the pro one just because you can play the same melody and as good as pro just by pressing this few buttons.
The more things you have to master to become a pro the better.
Making a guitar with a few buttons to play melodies would be utterly useless to play anything except those melodies. Feel free to make it and try to sell it.
It won't really make the gap between a pro and a noob smaller, the noob won't really appreciate what MBS means and how they can use it to its full potential while a pro will. Also there are tons and tons of small details that a pro pay attention to that a noob doesn't that means that the average game between a pro and a noob will probably be over in a 3 min rush.
Also saying something like "The more things you have to master to become a pro the better." is kinda silly since it implies we should revert back to the Dune interface where you could only select single units and attack move wasn't invented yet.
The idea is that you put alot of things into the game that a good player can use to dominate a lesser player, however these things shouldn't be control limitations, they should be abilities.
|
On May 28 2007 01:07 Zironic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2007 00:44 RainSong wrote:
In WC3 for the whole game you have 1-2 buildings to make a certain unit so it relly isnt any problem having multiply building selection - it dont take any skill level from the game. Then again in starcraft when you have 6-10 barract/gateways _it is a matter of skill_ how fast you can build new units while at the same time control your army. If in sc2 we will have multiply building selection then this aspect of skill will disappear and yes it will make the gap between pro and noob smaller.
Putting this option in sc2 would be like putting few button on guitar - binding some parts of a melody to them and then telling every one that you are as good guitarist as the pro one just because you can play the same melody and as good as pro just by pressing this few buttons.
The more things you have to master to become a pro the better.
Making a guitar with a few buttons to play melodies would be utterly useless to play anything except those melodies. Feel free to make it and try to sell it. It won't really make the gap between a pro and a noob smaller, the noob won't really appreciate what MBS means and how they can use it to its full potential while a pro will. Also there are tons and tons of small details that a pro pay attention to that a noob doesn't that means that the average game between a pro and a noob will probably be over in a 3 min rush. Also saying something like "The more things you have to master to become a pro the better." is kinda silly since it implies we should revert back to the Dune interface where you could only select single units and attack move wasn't invented yet. The idea is that you put alot of things into the game that a good player can use to dominate a lesser player, however these things shouldn't be control limitations, they should be abilities.
Yup exactly, you can't stop change, you can't stop improvement.. it is the fundamentals of capitalism which we all thrive under. When new features come up, you find ways to master them and use different tactics and strategies to utilize them. It is exactly how Zironic put it, if skill is defined the way you put it, we should all play Dune, where there were barely any features compared to know, forcing you to do more clicking and microing. If thats what skill is all about, lets forget starcraft and starcraft 2, just play Dune or whatever more primitive RTS there is.
RainSong, read the posts above before making uninformed comments. We've explained this very thoroughly as to why it doesn't shorten the gap between pro and newb players. Competition is NOT based on a lack of features.. its based on more features allowing for more people to play.. thus boosting competition. If micro skill goes down, macro skill goes up. Skill doesn't deteriate. I think its more rewarding to win a macro game than a skirmish of a few units utilizing very high micro... I think thats why a lot of Starcraft players were turned off by WC3 (although I liked the game). Blizzard already stated that they're aiming for 15-20 minute games anyways, so there is no issue of 'too big, too long' of games. The idea is to have 300 unit battles. Its more about strategy, general vs. general, as opposed to sergeant vs. sergeant. It is more fun this way, you feel like you're really waging war and you're in an epic struggle.
If you want to know more why skill doesn't go away, read upwards on this page.. or the previous page.
Still more questions, AFTER reading, then I'll gladly explain... in GREAT detail. 
|
On May 28 2007 00:44 RainSong wrote:
In WC3 for the whole game you have 1-2 buildings to make a certain unit so it relly isnt any problem having multiply building selection - it dont take any skill level from the game. Then again in starcraft when you have 6-10 barract/gateways _it is a matter of skill_ how fast you can build new units while at the same time control your army. If in sc2 we will have multiply building selection then this aspect of skill will disappear and yes it will make the gap between pro and noob smaller.
Putting this option in sc2 would be like putting few button on guitar - binding some parts of a melody to them and then telling every one that you are as good guitarist as the pro one just because you can play the same melody and as good as pro just by pressing this few buttons.
The more things you have to master to become a pro the better.
The guitar actually has one of the most effective interfaces out of all musical instruments- its difficult to imagine any change that could make it easier to play. The tuning is just very very well worked out. And as someone else pointed out, binding parts of the melody would make the 1 song you have 'bound' slightly easier (though actually I think you would be more likely to lose your sense of rhythm if one touch= 5 notes), and all other songs much harder.
The guitar example is actually a strong argument on the side of a better interface- because its great to watch a top player like Jeff Beck or David Gilmour creatively express themselves, utterly unhampered by a difficult interface. Wouldn't you love to see what amazing strategies and moves boxer would be pulling off if SC's interface wasn't such a pain?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
