|
On May 22 2007 07:00 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2007 06:49 Zironic wrote:On May 22 2007 06:44 Hot_Bid wrote:On May 22 2007 06:33 Zironic wrote:On May 22 2007 06:28 Hot_Bid wrote:On May 22 2007 06:23 Zironic wrote:
Wouldn't it be great if they manage to create enough depth in Starcraft 2 so there will never be any "ultimate" builds and there will be several valid strategies in the same match ups. What if they manage to make the game so complex that there are always new strategies and tactics invented? these expectations are entirely unrealistic. you can't expect blizzard to make an RTS version of chess. it's impossible. when you have hundreds of players practicing for a living at one thing, the ceiling tends to be reached ridiculously quickly. the proscene in korea is likely going to reach a skill level in SC2 many times faster than it reached the point now in SC1, simply because of how established it is already there. we're going to see ridiculously efficient builds and strategies, close to perfect even, really, really fast. when you have 12 hours a day and an entire team devoted to figuring shit down to the second, it's going to happen. it's amazing that SC1 has the potential for skill differentiation that it does. gamesense, timing, builds, all of it can be trained. the reason for the "deep" skill difference is speed and multitask, not strategy variation. if they implement too many "help" features like sub groups and select+alls, within a year or two of SC2 coming out all builds and replays will look the same. they simply are underestimating how nuts the proscene is. Warcraft 3 still has new strategies coming up all the time, seriously one of the pro Warcraft 3 players is known for managing to win by building defenses in the enemy base. I fully expect that Blizzard can come up with the RTS version of chess, you're just a pessimist. Making the RTS version of chess isn't impossible, it's just HARD. And Blizzard are the best after all :=) warcraft 3 frozen throne came out like two years ago and there are 4 races, a whole new set of matchups, and it's still being patched. someone who is familiar with the war3 proscene please interject here, i don't know that much about it, but i'm sure it's advancing the same way SC1 did, standardized strategies with players looking at lot like each other except for the very very top. i don't think anyone really is fully expecting SC2 to be better than SC1. it'd be tremendously difficult, and SC1 was great but 10 years old as opposed to chess which has been around for centuries? in 100 years will we still have SC1 competitions? expecting blizzard to come out with a game that has that sort of depth and longevity is unrealistic. I don't think SC2 will survive for centuries like Chess but I hope that it will be deep enough for new strategies to be invented 10 years after release. i'm sure they will, the metagame in SC1 is still very much alive. but much of this is dependent on just how much speed and multitask ceiling the game has. if you look at the current proscene, virtually every single Terran FE's in TvZ. there are obviously the random odd game where they don't, but it's pretty much the standard now. you could argue that it's because of certain maps with certain naturals that allow for FEs, but again those naturals are necessary so that ZvT is not ridiculously imbalanced. one base vs one base ZvT is impossible with the level of macro and micro pro terrans have right now. it's down to such a science that whether it's savior or july vs amateur practice partner, as long as it's TvZ on a map with no natural and 1 gas, the Terran will win like 90% of the time. tweaks like modified 3 hatch builds vs Terran and different FE tech timings are today's "new strategies." you're not going to see some ridiculous completely new build 10 years down the line, only small metagame and map-specific differences. DMZ is a good example of how delicate the balance for this is. No matter how much pro's practice on that map, they've clearly figured out that SCV rush is the best strategy. Timing on it and what your partner does can be tweaked, but its always a modified SCV rush. Boxer or NaDa or some amateur Terran, they are all going to SCV rush. Boxer's may be better, but the difference is so slight since the strategy has such a low ceiling that it's not even fun to watch and they had to eliminate the map. That is what we're scared of when they noobify macro in SC2. Making macro easier is not going to diversify build orders because somehow Pros can focus on them more. Rather, it's going to do the opposite, 90% of Pros will be able to execute the best BOs because they don't have to be as fast or multitask as well.
I'm not saying that the improved interface will diversify build orders. I'm saying that the improved interface is needed for Starcraft 2 to become popular with the casual players.
What I'm saying though is because Blizzard are aware of how delicate the macro/micro balance is in Starcraft they'll attempt to add more diverse build order options to compensate.
|
People don't want another RTS where you build as many units as possible and attack move them into the enemy's direction and see if you were able to build more gateways than your opponent has factories. Starcraft is not a massive army vs massive army game, eventhough that's what it looks like to people that aren't really experienced with the game. It's one of the elements that made starcraft such a great game.
Have you ever played fastest maps at starcraft before? That's the basic idea what will become of a game with multiple building selection possibilities and unlimited unit selection. I know this comparision isn't completely the same, but comparing Warcraft 3 with Starcraft isn't either  . Basically you build 30 gatesways, put a rally point near your entrance and build 80 zealots or so. Then attack move them to your opponent, who then appears to have vultures, and start creating 80 goons to counter those.
|
wow
you read battle.net foruns and use WC3 analogies..
didn't surprised me..
argh..
(to zarolic)
|
Casual players don't need multiple building selection options.. they need a good storyline, good graphics and awesome cinematics
|
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
Don't you agree though that any unnecessary interface limitations can hurt the UMS scene while only marginally affecting professional play?
|
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
And good UMS 
|
On May 22 2007 07:11 Zironic 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 Don't you agree though that any unnecessary interface limitations can hurt the UMS scene while only marginally affecting professional play?
I agree on the fact that limiting the interface will limit creative people that are trying to use the game for different purposes than it's created for. It's like machinima, where people use game engines to create their movies. They try to get the most out of a specific engine and try to extend the limits to give the game a totally different purpose. MODs as well as UMS maps work around the same concept. However UMS maps are way more limited than MODs and an actual feature of the game, given by blizzard as an extra goodie.
People don't buy games for these concepts though. People that buy StarCraft 2 will play the single player first, then if they have more ambition, go online and play competitively. Some people will not even complete the single player and go online right away. People buy the game for the actual game itself and a big part of them will play this competitively as well.
UMS maps are an extra goodie, which people play when bored.. However I do realize that there are people that mostly play UMS maps only, and there most likely is a UMS community somewhere as well. The community that plays the real game is way bigger than the ums one tho. You did mention professional play, but it's not just the pro scene this is an issue to, it's the wish of 90% of the people on this forum. People that love SC and want SC2 to be just as awesome as the original game. These people all agree on the fact that limiting the interface in the selection way will influence the gaming pleasures of all people are interested in competitive play.
|
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.
|
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.
There's more to macro then manually selecting buildings one by one... By almost all definitions of macro and micro that would fall into the category of micro anyhow.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
Ermm, let me come with an original opinion:
Macro is NOT about clicking on buildings.
Macro is about the depth of understanding of the player's income/outcome for all three resources (supply included) for the longest period into the future possible. Oov is NOT a fast clicker and never was one. He doesn't devote all of his 200 apm to macro, he surely microes alot. Oov just has an amazing understanding of what is happening to his economy every moment and what is going to happen to it in the next 5 minutes.
Watch pro play. Time after time you see them (omfg!) macroing off a lesser number of gateways/rax that you would've with the same number of bases. Does it mean they gosu click every gate? No. That only means they have lesser worker numbers and they're saving money for expansions. Macro is about predicting your resource management, and a pro toss doesn't need those 12-15 gates off 3 bases because he knows he is going to expo very soon and his main will mine out soon and he will build a bajillion of pylons, 3 stargates, fleet beacon, research upgrades and do many other stuff. He can have a better army with 6 gates (even though 3 bases with full probe load, no additional expenses and constant fighting can probably support 15+) because he doesn't spend all that money on unnecessary production facilities.
Macro is about "getting away with that". Whatever isn't vital goes into economy. If you can handle an enemy attack with 4 gates, DON'T build a fifth, or you will be eaten in the long run. FE trends demonstate this perfectly, much like Savior's play, which, even though abit shadowed by the dominance of Bisu, still is one of the scariest zerg ways of play around. The expansion rate of modern tosses in PvZ would've probably given 2002's YelloW a heart attack.
Don't get me wrong, I am totally against over-simplification. But macro isn't all about clicking, it's actually more about thinking. Complete automation would suck hard, and we all know that. But small helper features like automatic rallying on minerals and mass building selection limited to warping and mass rallying (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. And that would help alot) look scarier that they really are. As long as the economy model itself stays the same (and we have reasons to suspect it does) with all of it's complexity, SC2 will fare well.
EDIT: At the same time I totally agree that macro mechanics (it's a better term for handspeed related to economy management, methinks) can be and are indeed responsible for the new strategies developed nowadays. But no way only them. The average pro understands SC economy model better and better as time flows, and this also has a tremendous effect. It's not that hard to train some actions when you already understand what these actions are. Macro itself and the related mechanics develop together. But the more we delve into this, the more we come to the fact that everything is linked. Getting away with lower amounts of production facilities and larger investments into economy can't be separated from the micro control required to fend off enemy attacks. You can build up your economy so that when you will have a gundam at your door, you will fight it off with 2 goons and third coming, the quiestion is: can you really pull off the micro required? And you surely don't want to have this situation when your front door is an upward ramp, so it also can't be separated from map design.
Everything is linked, and only the combination of improvements of mechanics, economy understanding, micro situational understanding, psychology understanding, current trend understanding (Bisu won't go 2 gate on RLT, so I'll just go double FE without even scouting - here's your example) and innovations in map desing is, as a whole, responsible for new strategies.
|
On May 22 2007 07:17 Zironic 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. There's more to macro then manually selecting buildings one by one... By almost all definitions of macro and micro that would fall into the category of micro anyhow.
seriously, I don't wanna you quoting me 
I really hate you, LOL!. And I'm so fucking honest that I'm saying it to you.. Just to not act like a troll!
LOL!
Back to your post, macro in the sc:bw sense.
|
On May 22 2007 07:34 BluzMan wrote:
Ermm, let me come with an original opinion:
Macro is NOT about clicking on buildings.
Macro is about the depth of understanding of the player's income/outcome for all three resources (supply included) for the longest period into the future possible. Oov is NOT a fast clicker and never was one. He doesn't devote all of his 200 apm to macro, he surely microes alot. Oov just has an amazing understanding of what is happening to his economy every moment and what is going to happen to it in the next 5 minutes.
Watch pro play. Time after time you see them (omfg!) macroing off a lesser number of gateways/rax that you would've with the same number of bases. Does it mean they gosu click every gate? No. That only means they have lesser worker numbers and they're saving money for expansions. Macro is about predicting your resource management, and a pro toss doesn't need those 12-15 gates off 3 bases because he knows he is going to expo very soon and his main will mine out soon and he will build a bajillion of pylons, 3 stargates, fleet beacon, research upgrades and do many other stuff. He can have a better army with 6 gates (even though 3 bases with full probe load, no additional expenses and constant fighting can probably support 15+) because he doesn't spend all that money on unnecessary production facilities.
Macro is about "getting away with that". Whatever isn't vital goes into economy. If you can handle an enemy attack with 4 gates, DON'T build a fifth, or you will be eaten in the long run. FE trends demonstate this perfectly, much like Savior's play, which, even though abit shadowed by the dominance of Bisu, still is one of the scariest zerg ways of play around. The expansion rate of modern tosses in PvZ would've probably given 2002's YelloW a heart attack.
Don't get me wrong, I am totally against over-simplification. But macro isn't all about clicking, it's actually more about thinking. Complete automation would suck hard, and we all know that. But small helper features like automatic rallying on minerals and mass building selection limited to warping and mass rallying (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. And that would help alot) look scarier that they really are. As long as the economy model itself stays the same (and we have reasons to suspect it does) with all of it's complexity, SC2 will fare well.
I think I agree fully with your opinion on macro.
I think when it comes to Terran it would make sense if if you select 3 barracks and build a marine it will queue up a marine in the first barrack, if you press it again it will queue it up in the second and click a third time it will queue it up in the third, after that it'll queue the next one up in the barracks with the least build time remaining.
This way like the Protoss warping it would be 1 click = 1 unit. Zerg will probably keep their larva mechanic and will probably work like they do now only that you can select more larvae then before.
|
btw, my problem is not about my sexual pleasure aboud having to click in 12 gates to produce 12 zealots, is just because when you have to do this, it changes everything in your game, becomes hard to micro, to attack in multiple bases, etc. Thats why SC still popular 10 years after it was released,
Like poker:
few days to learn, a lifetime to master!
|
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"
|
If being able to hotkey multiple buildings into one hotkey is implemented, then it should be like this (taking Barracks as example):
Press 1 to select all your hotkeyed barracks, but only one barracks is extra-highlighted.
Press M to build a marine.
The extra-highlight cycles to the next barracks.
Press M to build a marine for this barracks.
The extra-highlight cycles to the next barracks... and so on.
You can hotkey only similar buildings, not barracks with factories, for example, or add-on factories with non-add-on factories.
This is noob-friendlier, but not by much. You still need to gauge your resources, if indeed, you have enough minerals to make 10 marines.
EDIT:
Just to add on this system:
The cycling works in order of building queues (as opposed to when each barrack was made, how the barracks are arranged positionally, etc.).
So let's say each of your ten barracks hotkeyed to 1 is building a marine. Then when you press 1, the extra-highlight will be on the barracks that is nearest to finish training/building the unit.
This presents a disadvantage! How would you know how many units are queued in each barracks? You could have 4 or 5--which is of course a waste--and pressing hotkey 1 won't tell you this. This is where gosu game sense of cash flow comes in--the macro sense.
|
lol, he's not a troll.. he's just trying to defend something that's truthful to him.
and Bluzman, good post but not completely true. It's a combination of what you just said PLUS being able to execute it; which is the clicking part.. and you contradicted yourself, saying macro is not about clicking buildings and right after you talk about apm being spend on macro ^^;
But yes, a better word for macro would be management. Not only spending what you have, but also building placement, putting down rally points, making the right teching decision, having the right amount of production buildings, know when to expand, know how fast your minerals will drop in and how to spend your income in the best way possible, etc etc etc.. however there's a 'mental' and a 'physical' side to this. The whole clickyclicky story is a just as important factor, since you'll have to be able to execute it perfectly too.
|
On May 22 2007 07:34 BluzMan wrote:
Ermm, let me come with an original opinion:
Macro is NOT about clicking on buildings.
Macro is about the depth of understanding of the player's income/outcome for all three resources (supply included) for the longest period into the future possible. Oov is NOT a fast clicker and never was one. He doesn't devote all of his 200 apm to macro, he surely microes alot. Oov just has an amazing understanding of what is happening to his economy every moment and what is going to happen to it in the next 5 minutes.
Watch pro play. Time after time you see them (omfg!) macroing off a lesser number of gateways/rax that you would've with the same number of bases. Does it mean they gosu click every gate? No. That only means they have lesser worker numbers and they're saving money for expansions. Macro is about predicting your resource management, and a pro toss doesn't need those 12-15 gates off 3 bases because he knows he is going to expo very soon and his main will mine out soon and he will build a bajillion of pylons, 3 stargates, fleet beacon, research upgrades and do many other stuff. He can have a better army with 6 gates (even though 3 bases with full probe load, no additional expenses and constant fighting can probably support 15+) because he doesn't spend all that money on unnecessary production facilities.
Macro is about "getting away with that". Whatever isn't vital goes into economy. If you can handle an enemy attack with 4 gates, DON'T build a fifth, or you will be eaten in the long run. FE trends demonstate this perfectly, much like Savior's play, which, even though abit shadowed by the dominance of Bisu, still is one of the scariest zerg ways of play around. The expansion rate of modern tosses in PvZ would've probably given 2002's YelloW a heart attack.
Don't get me wrong, I am totally against over-simplification. But macro isn't all about clicking, it's actually more about thinking. Complete automation would suck hard, and we all know that. But small helper features like automatic rallying on minerals and mass building selection limited to warping and mass rallying (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. And that would help alot) look scarier that they really are. As long as the economy model itself stays the same (and we have reasons to suspect it does) with all of it's complexity, SC2 will fare well.
I've posted a similar thing several times before and I can tell you to prepare for some bullshit and retarded reasoning defending "macro = mass click = skill".
|
On May 22 2007 07:46 Equinox_kr wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On May 22 2007 07:53 Zironic wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
It was fairly necessary since half the game was based around you running around the map fighting neutral opponents. You needed some way to get back to base quick to defend it. Still, it all created a game that played very strangely.
As someone else said
"I want to play against the enemy, not some computer controlled neutrals >.>"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
