Now, I think that most of us here are pretty much against being able to select multiple buildings at once (at least thats the feeling I've seen perpetuated time and time again throughout these forums). But if you take a look at the game demo videos (easier to see in the higher resolution ones), you'll see that the demoer is able to select what appear to be multiple warp gates at once. (Take a look around the point stalkers come into play, along with the zealot warp right after that)
When I first noticed this, I immediately thought bad things, but then I looked at how it was being used. To me, it appears as though you can select multiple buildings, but each 'click' to create units only creates it in one of the buildings. So its still one click per unit. It does, however, appear to auto-find the next building that is idle, taking away that aspect of the game.
So my question is, what do you guys think of this multiple-selection style? Does the one click per unit aspect keep it okay, or does it still remove a lot of the skill of macro?
I think having to find the buildings is better... in the case of having double digit production facilities. Otherwise while you are in battle you just his your one hotkey and spam the build hotkey every so often and never have to really manage how your buildings are made (especially if you can just warp in you protoss units right to the battle if you have an energy field there, which it looks like won't be difficult to do.
So no on the multiple building selection for purposes of production.
By the way: I suck at Starcraft, but that doesn't mean I want to make it easier for myself.
No reason for not including it really, other than that we are used to do it the hard way.
Agreed. 99% of the complaints you will hear stem from the fact that we are used to it being a certain way and stubbornly refuse to change for some reason.
Yeah, it makes the game harder and adds a level of skill if you can't queue up units, or if you can only select 6 or 3 or 1 unit at a time, or whtaever, but those are stupid and no one in their right mind would ever implement them.
Don't like it, makes the game much more noobie friendly. If you can select every single one of your units and all your building with 2 hotkeys, thats makes multitasking incredibly easy.
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?
I think we all predicted multiple building selection, in the same vein as War3. I think we may see the return of subgroups as well, especially considering the unlimited unit selection. It's really nothing to fear though.
On May 21 2007 16:33 Excalibur_Z wrote: I think we all predicted multiple building selection, in the same vein as War3. I think we may see the return of subgroups as well, especially considering the unlimited unit selection. It's really nothing to fear though.
Won't it be much easier to have oov-like macro though?
On May 21 2007 16:33 Excalibur_Z wrote: I think we all predicted multiple building selection, in the same vein as War3. I think we may see the return of subgroups as well, especially considering the unlimited unit selection. It's really nothing to fear though.
Won't it be much easier to have oov-like macro though?
Oov's macro is not just 3m4m5c6m7m8m9m0c Every pro can do that, but what makes Oov stand out is his fantastic game sense; he knows when to do what, what to do to maximize his production, etc.
On May 21 2007 16:33 Excalibur_Z wrote: I think we all predicted multiple building selection, in the same vein as War3. I think we may see the return of subgroups as well, especially considering the unlimited unit selection. It's really nothing to fear though.
Won't it be much easier to have oov-like macro though?
Easier, yes, but I bet it would still be something that separates the good from the great. For example, let's say you have all your buildings hotkeyed to a single group. Furthermore, let's say that Subgroups are already implemented, meaning you just have to Tab to the next type of building. So you have 12 Factories and 1-2 Starports hotkeyed. Some of those Factories have addons and some don't. Let's say you hit V when the Factories are selected - you've just given the order to produce 12 Vultures when you probably want some (but not all) of the Machine Shop Factories building Tanks. You could probably separate your Machine Shop and non-Machine Shop Factories into separate hotkeys to make it a little easier still, but then what if you don't want (or can't afford) all of your Machine Shop Factories making Tanks, what if you just want one or two, with the rest producing Vultures? You can only get the level of force customization that pros excel at by individually selecting production structures, and that's something pros will probably continue to do considering force balance will be so delicate an issue.
All this does is remove another facet of skill from the game. I don't see why this is something people want. Yeah, if you want the game to be less practice intensive, I can see why. But implementing multiple-building select makes high level play less impressive.
Excalibur nailed it. All multiple building selection does it make it easier for lower level players to macro. This will bring more players to the game and help improve the community.
it's not a matter of being afraid of change. things like this are what separate us white kids from people like oov. it's a matter of SKILL. adding shit like this just takes away from the skill of the game.
On May 21 2007 16:33 Excalibur_Z wrote: I think we all predicted multiple building selection, in the same vein as War3. I think we may see the return of subgroups as well, especially considering the unlimited unit selection. It's really nothing to fear though.
Won't it be much easier to have oov-like macro though?
Easier, yes, but I bet it would still be something that separates the good from the great. For example, let's say you have all your buildings hotkeyed to a single group. Furthermore, let's say that Subgroups are already implemented, meaning you just have to Tab to the next type of building. So you have 12 Factories and 1-2 Starports hotkeyed. Some of those Factories have addons and some don't. Let's say you hit V when the Factories are selected - you've just given the order to produce 12 Vultures when you probably want some (but not all) of the Machine Shop Factories building Tanks. You could probably separate your Machine Shop and non-Machine Shop Factories into separate hotkeys to make it a little easier still, but then what if you don't want (or can't afford) all of your Machine Shop Factories making Tanks, what if you just want one or two, with the rest producing Vultures? You can only get the level of force customization that pros excel at by individually selecting production structures, and that's something pros will probably continue to do considering force balance will be so delicate an issue.
That would be bad IMO, but not what I was thinking of. I think what the OP was getting at is that it would only make 1 unit when you press the hotkey to make it, rather that have all of them build. For example: I have all my Barracks hotkeyed to 4. I press 4mmmmmm every so often in battle to keep my marines coming. I don't have to pay attention to which barracks are building, as long as I've got the money it will build a marine in the next available barracks.
Another concern I have with building from multiple building at once is the Zerg issue. How will this affect the larvae being selected if you only wanted to make one hydralisk from your mass building selection? How would you do that via hotkeys as they are described above? And if they build all at once, that makes it very difficult for Zerg to produce multiple types of unit at once, and also in that case how many units (larvae) would be able to be selected at once?
I think from the nature at which the different races produce units currently that it would be difficult to implement some sort of mass building select and build and keep it balanced in how it is done.
I am sure it will grow on me, but I still don't know how they would implement and easy mass build for zerg.
Also, all the noob-friendly upgrades, the noobs (including myself) are still going to lose to the better players anyway so that isn't what I'm concerned about. I'm worried about the game as a spectator's sport and the competition at higher levels.
I don't want these features to ruin the progamer aspect, because in reality they aren't going to help me become better or win any more games.
I think its stupid. It takes some skill & dexterity to constantly cycle through your 'factories' and build units when needed. A huge part of late game battles completely depend on your ability to handle the battles and build the correct units from multiple factories.
There is not as much micro needed in late game battles because of the sheer numbers of units so a super macro is not even needed. It just makes it so less skilled players can compete with the more skilled player without any effort.
Another thing to point out is that some pros have unit/building ratios perfectly figured out so they it gives them some resource advantage. They solely rely on their skill to be able to build from a lesser amount of 'factories' . Where a less skilled player will have 10 'factories' a pro will have say 5-6 and have the same amount of units because of their skill of being able to build from them more efficiently.
In warcraft 3 there isn't as many buildings to mass macro a unit of so its not that big of a deal. Plus the saved time is used for Microing less units.
I think maybe the selection of multiple static defense structures is ok but unit producers is not.
Also imagine a terran lifting all his structures at once to escape and issuing them all to move to somewhere safe. Thats very cheap.
There will always be a skill gap between pros and nonpros, as mentioned by others.. there are gonna be so many other factors other than being able to select all ur buildings...
This zerg dilemma intrigues me.. i wonder if building with zerg will be the same? we have yet to see a hatchery.. maybe there are no larvae anymore? blizzard can pull anything out of the hat at this moment..
On May 21 2007 17:24 Bully-Cdn(TheTrap) wrote: There will always be a skill gap between pros and nonpros, as mentioned by others.. there are gonna be so many other factors other than being able to select all ur buildings...
macro isn't just a "factor", it's a good 60% of the game and one of the biggest thing that separates and makes starcraft such a competitive game.
I think the argument that it's a non-strategic factor in a strategy game is a poor one, as I'm sure you'd not want micro taken out of the game?
I will say tho that the more I see and hear about SC2, the more I feel that blizzard won't fuck this part up, I'm gonna reserve my judgement until they release details on how exactly it will work.
On May 21 2007 17:33 Servolisk wrote: Why don't we just make SC mouse only to further increase the skill gap and make another non-strategic element a big factor of a strategy game?
I hate it when people retort with idiodic things like this. That's just taking it to a different extreme, which is also bad. Starcraft is wonderful in part because it doesn't take anything toward any extremes; it creates a friendly balance between it's tasks.
Some noobifications are good, if implemented properly. Some are not good. The same is true for advanced multitasking, in some cases it is good for the game, whem properly implemented, in others not so much.
I think it's great. At first I thought like "we're used to play like real men, wc3 is for sissys, bla bla bla".
But, Why always try to make coreans like gods? Think About it. Maybe YOU, yes, You, have the same or maybe better understanding of the game than Oov himself, but you can't keep with a player like him just because of his speed. Maybe with this, you have the oportunity (or at least more chances) to face great players that understand the game at your same lvl, and not be defeated by someone who did the wrong units but in an insane number because of his apm.
This feature will for sure put the gap closer between Coreans and rest of the world.
On May 21 2007 17:33 Servolisk wrote: Why don't we just make SC mouse only to further increase the skill gap and make another non-strategic element a big factor of a strategy game?
I hate it when people retort with idiodic things like this. That's just taking it to a different extreme, which is also bad. Starcraft is wonderful in part because it doesn't take anything toward any extremes; it creates a friendly balance between it's tasks.
Some noobifications are good, if implemented properly. Some are not good. The same is true for advanced multitasking, in some cases it is good for the game, whem properly implemented, in others not so much.
I hate when people miss the point of the analogy. What it proves is that given feature X, you cannot argue for or against it simply because "It will add another facet into the game and make it harder and separate newb from pro", because if you accept that as valid reasoning, then you are logically compelled to accept any and all features that makes the game harder and separate newb from pro. Your burden is to demonstrate why the argument is valid up to but not beyond that particular point.
So for example, in unit selection:
Let's move unit selection up to 24!
NO THAT'S BAD. YOU SHOULD KEEP IT AT 12 BECAUSE THAT INTRODUCES MORE SKILL AND MAKES IT HARDER
So why not move it down to 6, 3 or 1 then? What is so uniquely special about 12 such that makes it the only good point, other than the fact that we are used to it being that way?
I really have no interest in playing a game about multitasking. When I bought SC originally I wanted a "strategy" game.
You tastes can be what they are, but part of what I believe makes Real Time Strategy games so interesting (and the fact that they are real time strategy game) is the issue of multitasking. A lot of people seem to want to slow the game down or automate/make easier a bunch of things and that if they do the superior strategist within them will come flying out their anus and make them into some supreme general. Thinking and reacting in a timely manner is part of an RTS, if players can't deal they should go play a turn based strategy game.
I really have no interest in playing a game about multitasking. When I bought SC originally I wanted a "strategy" game.
But then you discovered that SC was an awesome mix of multitasking AND strategy and fell in love?
No, cuz I was already in love from single player, and back then my apm was probably 30 :p
Anyway, I don't follow war3, but don't they have plenty to multitask and high apms? :o The way people talk it would seem like they don't.
edit: so ... wouldn't this just make other things the focus of your multitasking and improve the general level of skill for all people while still keeping the gap? Because the gap is going to stay with or without a change.
On May 21 2007 17:33 Servolisk wrote: Why don't we just make SC mouse only to further increase the skill gap and make another non-strategic element a big factor of a strategy game?
I hate it when people retort with idiodic things like this. That's just taking it to a different extreme, which is also bad. Starcraft is wonderful in part because it doesn't take anything toward any extremes; it creates a friendly balance between it's tasks.
Some noobifications are good, if implemented properly. Some are not good. The same is true for advanced multitasking, in some cases it is good for the game, whem properly implemented, in others not so much.
I hate when people miss the point of the analogy. What it proves is that given feature X, you cannot argue for or against it simply because "It will add another facet into the game and make it harder and separate newb from pro", because if you accept that as valid reasoning, then you are logically compelled to accept any and all features that makes the game harder and separate newb from pro. Your burden is to demonstrate why the argument is valid up to but not beyond that particular point.
So for example, in unit selection:
Let's move unit selection up to 24!
NO THAT'S BAD. YOU SHOULD KEEP IT AT 12 BECAUSE THAT INTRODUCES MORE SKILL AND MAKES IT HARDER
So why not move it down to 6, 3 or 1 then? What is so uniquely special about 12 such that makes it the only good point, other than the fact that we are used to it being that way?
On May 21 2007 17:33 Servolisk wrote: Why don't we just make SC mouse only to further increase the skill gap and make another non-strategic element a big factor of a strategy game?
I hate it when people retort with idiodic things like this. That's just taking it to a different extreme, which is also bad. Starcraft is wonderful in part because it doesn't take anything toward any extremes; it creates a friendly balance between it's tasks.
Some noobifications are good, if implemented properly. Some are not good. The same is true for advanced multitasking, in some cases it is good for the game, whem properly implemented, in others not so much.
I hate when people miss the point of the analogy. What it proves is that given feature X, you cannot argue for or against it simply because "It will add another facet into the game and make it harder and separate newb from pro", because if you accept that as valid reasoning, then you are logically compelled to accept any and all features that makes the game harder and separate newb from pro. Your burden is to demonstrate why the argument is valid up to but not beyond that particular point.
So for example, in unit selection:
Let's move unit selection up to 24!
NO THAT'S BAD. YOU SHOULD KEEP IT AT 12 BECAUSE THAT INTRODUCES MORE SKILL AND MAKES IT HARDER
So why not move it down to 6, 3 or 1 then? What is so uniquely special about 12 such that makes it the only good point, other than the fact that we are used to it being that way?
I actually think increased amount of unit selection is one of the better changes. Like I said in my quote, some changes can be good, others bad. This is a thread about selecting multiple buildings at once (with emphasis on producing units). Not a thread about unit selection.
I am for a balance between noob and pro, to make it competeitive for the pro, but simple enough for the noob. Some changes (not all) I feel push that too much in one direction or the other.
On May 21 2007 17:33 Servolisk wrote: Why don't we just make SC mouse only to further increase the skill gap and make another non-strategic element a big factor of a strategy game?
I hate it when people retort with idiodic things like this. That's just taking it to a different extreme, which is also bad. Starcraft is wonderful in part because it doesn't take anything toward any extremes; it creates a friendly balance between it's tasks.
Some noobifications are good, if implemented properly. Some are not good. The same is true for advanced multitasking, in some cases it is good for the game, whem properly implemented, in others not so much.
I hate when people miss the point of the analogy. What it proves is that given feature X, you cannot argue for or against it simply because "It will add another facet into the game and make it harder and separate newb from pro", because if you accept that as valid reasoning, then you are logically compelled to accept any and all features that makes the game harder and separate newb from pro. Your burden is to demonstrate why the argument is valid up to but not beyond that particular point.
So for example, in unit selection:
Let's move unit selection up to 24!
NO THAT'S BAD. YOU SHOULD KEEP IT AT 12 BECAUSE THAT INTRODUCES MORE SKILL AND MAKES IT HARDER
So why not move it down to 6, 3 or 1 then? What is so uniquely special about 12 such that makes it the only good point, other than the fact that we are used to it being that way?
Most people are not against increasing the gap, but against the "no cap" thing.
On May 21 2007 17:49 AmorVincitOmnia wrote: you don't hear about wc3 players quitting to play starcraft, do you?
You mean other than Freedom.werra?
I have many friends, as well as myself, who quit war3 and returned to playing Starcraft. Sure, I originally stopped playing Starcraft to play the new game, but came back to it as I thought it was the better game of the two.
Not everyone is the same, many people will leave both games for SC2, and I sure there will be people who return to both. To each his own.
So, what you guys are saying is that it's perfectly fine to give new players to macro with the best of us, with the only difference being unit choice?
If SC2 comes out with unlimited building selection, I probably won't even bother.
And we really have to quit with the dumb analogies. You don't see any proponents of single building selection saying, "why don't we just limit the number of production buildings, because that would further even the playing field?" because what you people are saying is pretty much equivalent.
Also, those of you who say it should be less about mechanics and more about "skill" please define skill. Is it experience aka game sense, ability to flank, timing?
If you consider "Skill" being able to type and click real fast, then that is what you must be referring to when you talk about this unit production.
All it really is is being able to hotkey and press real fast...and I don't think it will make a huge difference if we change it. Boxer, Nada, Oov, and Savior aren't gosu just because they can click fast...they are gosu because of their micro and "sense" of the game. Just because you give everyone the same macro enhancements doesn't mean it is going to bring down the skill of the game. Pros will still know when to produce, how much, and what and noobs will still create units in akward intervals and create up 10 tanks in their production qeues and ruin their economy instead of creating up steadily over time.
This isn't going to ruin the game. If you are scared of that, then you need to really re-examine what makes pros Pros. If something as little as this could "remove" their title, then they shouldn't be considered pros. Simple as that.
No matter how noob friendly the interface will become, there will still be a huge gap between us and the pros, simply becaues they have much stronger game sense. Why do you think savior and oov are so strong, it's their game sense not that they can macro and micro like every other pros.
On May 21 2007 18:06 Person514cs wrote: No matter how noob friendly the interface will become, there will still be a huge gap between us and the pros, simply becaues they have much stronger game sense. Why do you think savior and oov are so strong, it's their game sense not that they can macro and micro like every other pros.
If you think any top foreigner has mechanics equivalent to Nada or any S-class pro, I think you are severely mistaken.
On May 21 2007 18:06 Person514cs wrote: No matter how noob friendly the interface will become, there will still be a huge gap between us and the pros, simply becaues they have much stronger game sense. Why do you think savior and oov are so strong, it's their game sense not that they can macro and micro like every other pros.
Exactly. Trust me, allowing a player to select all of their buildings and create units won't ruin our level of playing. If you are afraid of that...please, be more confident in your skill. You aren't better than the player you just beat the other day just because of being able to hotkey and click things fast. You are better (hopefully) because of your "sense" of the game and being able to produce the right things at the right time. Adding a nice interface like this won't ruin your macro and certainly won't give your opponent an edge...remember, you are also gaining that edge.
Macro isn't just being able to hotkey these buildings and produce units. Any high level players should know that. This won't hurt macro at all...no player should be in jeopardy of being defeated because their opponent now can use a nifty interface....especially because that player can also use it too. It isn't like Blizzard is walking around handing noobs free passes into the upper tier of Starcraft gameplay...people are definitely freaking out too much about this.
And on the topic of unit selection...keep it unlimited. You know how annoying it is when I have my zerg army to send them all into battle? All of my hotkeys are already being used for hatcheries and it is a pain in the ass to have to select 12, send, select 12, send, etc. I think that adding an unlimited unit selection will only raise the gameplay for EVERYONE to a higher level. Pros will be godlier and noobs will be slightly better...but the gap between them will remain the same. Something this piddly doesn't decide games. Welcome change...it is how things get better.
It's not as if it will be even used much by better players. It isn't even that useful IMO. In War3 I never used it... it is kind of noobish to macro the same unit at the same time. I really don't care about this feature, I'm just for improving interface in general. Selecting multiple buildings will hardly account for 60% of the game as some have said.
On May 21 2007 17:33 Servolisk wrote: Why don't we just make SC mouse only to further increase the skill gap and make another non-strategic element a big factor of a strategy game?
exactly~~ I don't want players able to do that fast to be "better" players, I want the people to win the games with strategy, making the right decisions out of experience and such things.
On May 21 2007 18:06 Person514cs wrote: No matter how noob friendly the interface will become, there will still be a huge gap between us and the pros, simply becaues they have much stronger game sense. Why do you think savior and oov are so strong, it's their game sense not that they can macro and micro like every other pros.
Exactly. Trust me, allowing a player to select all of their buildings and create units won't ruin our level of playing. If you are afraid of that...please, be more confident in your skill. You aren't better than the player you just beat the other day just because of being able to hotkey and click things fast. You are better (hopefully) because of your "sense" of the game and being able to produce the right things at the right time. Adding a nice interface like this won't ruin your macro and certainly won't give your opponent an edge...remember, you are also gaining that edge.
Macro isn't just being able to hotkey these buildings and produce units. Any high level players should know that. This won't hurt macro at all...no player should be in jeopardy of being defeated because their opponent now can use a nifty interface....especially because that player can also use it too. It isn't like Blizzard is walking around handing noobs free passes into the upper tier of Starcraft gameplay...people are definitely freaking out too much about this.
And on the topic of unit selection...keep it unlimited. You know how annoying it is when I have my zerg army to send them all into battle? All of my hotkeys are already being used for hatcheries and it is a pain in the ass to have to select 12, send, select 12, send, etc. I think that adding an unlimited unit selection will only raise the gameplay for EVERYONE to a higher level. Pros will be godlier and noobs will be slightly better...but the gap between them will remain the same. Something this piddly doesn't decide games. Welcome change...it is how things get better.
It isn't so much that we want to force players to 5sd6sd7sd8sd9sd0sd just for the hell of it. It's just by forcing them to do so, it indirectly forces them to make split second decisions and any delay would put you behind your opponent compounded by the fact that each hotkey takes even more time to execute.
Even mindlessly hotkeying all of your production buildings and massing one unit, and the next time around massing another, you are pretty much on par with other higher level players. Even if multiple building selection is allow, at least it should be limited.
On May 21 2007 18:06 Person514cs wrote: No matter how noob friendly the interface will become, there will still be a huge gap between us and the pros, simply becaues they have much stronger game sense. Why do you think savior and oov are so strong, it's their game sense not that they can macro and micro like every other pros.
If you think any top foreigner has mechanics equivalent to Nada or any S-class pro, I think you are severely mistaken.
I belive there are quiet of few top foreigners with APM higher then that of savior or oov.
Those who think multiselection building will not reduce hugely the skill's gap seriously have no clue. And dont argue there will still be one, everyone understand this my god. The point is that it will be ! reduced.
And please War3 players, wait for War4 if you want to simplify the game even more or claim that upkeep and creeps should be good features to implement.
On May 21 2007 18:06 Person514cs wrote: No matter how noob friendly the interface will become, there will still be a huge gap between us and the pros, simply becaues they have much stronger game sense. Why do you think savior and oov are so strong, it's their game sense not that they can macro and micro like every other pros.
If you think any top foreigner has mechanics equivalent to Nada or any S-class pro, I think you are severely mistaken.
I belive there are quiet of few top foreigners with APM higher then that of savior or oov.
On May 21 2007 17:33 Servolisk wrote: Why don't we just make SC mouse only to further increase the skill gap and make another non-strategic element a big factor of a strategy game?
exactly~~ I don't want players able to do that fast to be "better" players, I want the people to win the games with strategy, making the right decisions out of experience and such things.
On May 21 2007 18:06 mahnini wrote: "why don't we just limit the number of production buildings, because that would further even the playing field?"
Because it shouldn't be about how many production buildings you can make, it should be about strategy right?
On May 21 2007 18:06 Person514cs wrote: No matter how noob friendly the interface will become, there will still be a huge gap between us and the pros, simply becaues they have much stronger game sense. Why do you think savior and oov are so strong, it's their game sense not that they can macro and micro like every other pros.
If you think any top foreigner has mechanics equivalent to Nada or any S-class pro, I think you are severely mistaken.
I belive there are quiet of few top foreigners with APM higher then that of savior or oov.
No foreign Terran can use SKTerran as effectively as Nada while macroing out of 9 raxes, the same could be said about July's muta micro, or savior's defiler usage.
On May 21 2007 18:06 Person514cs wrote: No matter how noob friendly the interface will become, there will still be a huge gap between us and the pros, simply becaues they have much stronger game sense. Why do you think savior and oov are so strong, it's their game sense not that they can macro and micro like every other pros.
If you think any top foreigner has mechanics equivalent to Nada or any S-class pro, I think you are severely mistaken.
I belive there are quiet of few top foreigners with APM higher then that of savior or oov.
No foreign Terran can use SKTerran as effectively as Nada while macroing out of 9 raxes, the same could be said about July's muta micro, or savior's defiler usage.
All the pros that I ever mentioned are savior and oov, why are you keep talking about nada?
I have no problem mass selecting units and building as long as its done properly. The way I'd like to see it implemented is so that you can't just auto command all the buildings to build at once and also you can't just hit keys and the next barracks in line will make your unit (this would be difficult for zerg to emulate).
What I would suggest is that you CAN select multiple buildings, but once you have them all selected you have to click on the icon of a sepcific building to bring up the commands to be able to build a unit. Other commands (such as attack for defense sructures, or a common rally point) could be used in mass and improve the game I believe. This works decently for all three races as well. It frees up additional hotkeys which can be used for more specific groups of control units. It allows the user to be able to build units without having to click all over the map and they still need the general awareness to know when and which buildings are ready to build more units.
edit: not necessarily this specifically, but if it is to be done, somewhere along these lines would be best I think.
edit edit: FA's tab idea right below this post sounds pretty good too.
I don't think having to click each building is feasible, however, having something like the tab command in warcraft 3 would be (tab and you move to the next type of units you have selected, but in this case I'd suggest you just move to the next building - in the selection wireframe that is, not on screen).
On May 21 2007 18:06 Person514cs wrote: No matter how noob friendly the interface will become, there will still be a huge gap between us and the pros, simply becaues they have much stronger game sense. Why do you think savior and oov are so strong, it's their game sense not that they can macro and micro like every other pros.
If you think any top foreigner has mechanics equivalent to Nada or any S-class pro, I think you are severely mistaken.
I belive there are quiet of few top foreigners with APM higher then that of savior or oov.
No foreign Terran can use SKTerran as effectively as Nada while macroing out of 9 raxes, the same could be said about July's muta micro, or savior's defiler usage.
All the pros that I ever mentioned are savior and oov, why are you keep talking about nada?
Because he's a prime example? Just because you can't refute it means I shouldn't use him as an example?
I also mentioned July and Savior. I also doubt that in his prime foreigners came close to oov as well.
Yes, because SC2 completely revolves around programers only. Geez you guys get over yourselfs... SC1 will always be here so you can showcase your 1sh2sh3sh4sh skills or whatever. Blizzard has -=PROMISED=- that SC2 will every bit of competitive as SC1, so why are you guys worrying over stupid shit like this? SC2 will focus the competitiveness more towards the actual units and other styles of gameplay, not in your showcase ability to click buildings...
On May 21 2007 18:34 DenariusJay wrote: Yes, because SC2 completely revolves around programers only. Geez you guys get over yourselfs... SC1 will always be here so you can showcase your 1sh2sh3sh4sh skills or whatever. Blizzard has -=PROMISED=- that SC2 will every bit of competitive as SC1, so why are you guys worrying over stupid shit like this? SC2 will focus the competitiveness more towards the actual units and other styles of gameplay, not in your showcase ability to click buildings...
People promise a lot of things (e.g. Bush) if you have faith that Blizzard will make a game you want that's fine and dandy, but with all these people who seem to support unlimited everything selection I think I should voice my opinion as well.
i think the specifics like multiple building selection don't matter so much.
the main thing is that the game should be played at a speed that in mid/late game there's always more useful things to do than anybody can handle (even nada falters sometimes). this ensures that you're not just sitting around watching your units trudge across the screen (a la wc3).
if macroing took less time, then maybe you'd see more of other things -- like people executing 3 simultaneous storm drops while clearing mines, building supply, and stalling with their main army.
blizzard has thought about this, from pillars' posts in the other thread to the gameplay video commentary about ways skill differentials are rewarded. i do hope the requirement of being able to multitask at multiple locations on the map very quickly is kept in sc2 though, be it via macro chores or whatever. this keeps players in flow and gives them a clear goal to constantly try to improve towards
On May 21 2007 18:39 Polemarch wrote: i think the specifics like multiple building selection don't matter so much.
the main thing is that the game should be played at a speed that in mid/late game there's always more useful things to do than anybody can handle (even nada falters sometimes). this ensures that you're not just sitting around watching your units trudge across the screen (a la wc3).
if macroing took less time, then maybe you'd see more of other things -- like people executing 3 simultaneous storm drops while clearing mines, building supply, and stalling with their main army.
blizzard has thought about this, from pillars' posts in the other thread to the gameplay video commentary about ways skill differentials are rewarded. i do hope the requirement of being able to multitask at multiple locations on the map very quickly is kept in sc2 though, be it via macro chores or whatever. this keeps players in flow and gives them a clear goal to constantly try to improve towards
You see, that's precisely the problem, sure you can harass more or clear mine, drop, etc., etc but where's the macro?
Your opinion is fine, but all your doing is throwing out wild theories and accusations that multi select buildings will close the skill gap. How? Have you played the game and experienced this? Talk to us then. Pros will be pros; they will work the multi system better then the noob and will always have the upper advantage no matter what system is involved, so the competitiveness is always the same across the board no matter what system they have. So again I ask why even worry about this... sc2 is to new to even ask the proper questions about game mechanics, let alone actually trying to say its some skill less newb game now (like some people are trying to claim, even tho they'd never played it)
A good solution to this IMO would be if you select multiple buildings for the unit queues to "round robin" through the buildings. So you select 4 gateways, hit Z 4 times and it queued one Zealot in each gate. It makes sense to me as a solution because it is simply more flexible and powerful than how imprecise pressing Z once and getting a zeal in each gate would be.
Like the other way if you wanted 3 zeals and a templar your only option would be to either select all, hit z, then select one gate individually and cancel the zealot and replace it with a templar. Or to manually select 3 gates and then make 1 temp, but this wouldnt fit in with the playstyle too well considering most folks will probably want to key all similar buildings to one key.
If you attempted to do the round robin thing in the middle of building other units the game would just choose the production structure that is next in terms of speed. Simple.
Personally I think something regarding selecting all unit structures will be necessary, because Zerg players are going to be able to select all larvaes at once so OO;
On May 21 2007 18:45 red.venom wrote: A good solution to this IMO would be if you select multiple buildings for the unit queues to "round robin" through the buildings. So you select 4 gateways, hit Z 4 times and it queued one Zealot in each gate. It makes sense to me as a solution because it is simply more flexible and powerful than how imprecise pressing Z once and getting a zeal in each gate would be.
Like the other way if you wanted 3 zeals and a templar your only option would be to either select all, hit z, then select one gate individually and cancel the zealot and replace it with a templar. Or to manually select 3 gates and then make 1 temp, but this wouldnt fit in with the playstyle too well considering most folks will probably want to key all similar buildings to one key.
I still don't know how they would do this effectively for Zerg.
On May 21 2007 18:39 Polemarch wrote: i think the specifics like multiple building selection don't matter so much.
the main thing is that the game should be played at a speed that in mid/late game there's always more useful things to do than anybody can handle (even nada falters sometimes). this ensures that you're not just sitting around watching your units trudge across the screen (a la wc3).
if macroing took less time, then maybe you'd see more of other things -- like people executing 3 simultaneous storm drops while clearing mines, building supply, and stalling with their main army.
blizzard has thought about this, from pillars' posts in the other thread to the gameplay video commentary about ways skill differentials are rewarded. i do hope the requirement of being able to multitask at multiple locations on the map very quickly is kept in sc2 though, be it via macro chores or whatever. this keeps players in flow and gives them a clear goal to constantly try to improve towards
You see, that's precisely the problem, sure you can harass more or clear mine, drop, etc., etc but where's the macro?
Isn't that macro? being able to control things on a grand scale? So before you are able to harrass someone while mass producing from buildings, now you are able to harrass someone from two different angles controlling two separate groups. The needing to build more units is not as important a factor, opening up the ability to execute multiple tactics >_<
(edit: this post moves too fast... was originally below that post above)
On May 21 2007 18:45 red.venom wrote: A good solution to this IMO would be if you select multiple buildings for the unit queues to "round robin" through the buildings. So you select 4 gateways, hit Z 4 times and it queued one Zealot in each gate. It makes sense to me as a solution because it is simply more flexible and powerful than how imprecise pressing Z once and getting a zeal in each gate would be.
Like the other way if you wanted 3 zeals and a templar your only option would be to either select all, hit z, then select one gate individually and cancel the zealot and replace it with a templar. Or to manually select 3 gates and then make 1 temp, but this wouldnt fit in with the playstyle too well considering most folks will probably want to key all similar buildings to one key.
I still don't know how they would do this effectively for Zerg.
Really? Maybe you don't understand what he meant then...
In his way (which I think is awesome!) you select your 12 hatcheries in one hotkey, hit sd, first one builds 3 drones, then you hit sz and you build zerglings... etc. You don't have to manually select each hatchery, yet you still build units 'one at a time' sort of
On May 21 2007 18:39 Polemarch wrote: i think the specifics like multiple building selection don't matter so much.
the main thing is that the game should be played at a speed that in mid/late game there's always more useful things to do than anybody can handle (even nada falters sometimes). this ensures that you're not just sitting around watching your units trudge across the screen (a la wc3).
if macroing took less time, then maybe you'd see more of other things -- like people executing 3 simultaneous storm drops while clearing mines, building supply, and stalling with their main army.
blizzard has thought about this, from pillars' posts in the other thread to the gameplay video commentary about ways skill differentials are rewarded. i do hope the requirement of being able to multitask at multiple locations on the map very quickly is kept in sc2 though, be it via macro chores or whatever. this keeps players in flow and gives them a clear goal to constantly try to improve towards
You see, that's precisely the problem, sure you can harass more or clear mine, drop, etc., etc but where's the macro?
Isn't that macro? being able to control things on a grand scale? So before you are able to harrass someone while mass producing from buildings, now you are able to harrass someone from two different angles controlling two separate groups. The needing to build more units is not as important a factor, opening up the ability to execute multiple tactics >_<
(edit: this post moves too fast... was originally below that post above)
I was talking about macro purely in the RTS sense, which is, as I understand it, resource management. What you are suggesting is to make SC2 WC3, just on a much more massive scale. 90% micro and 10% macro.
On May 21 2007 18:45 red.venom wrote: A good solution to this IMO would be if you select multiple buildings for the unit queues to "round robin" through the buildings. So you select 4 gateways, hit Z 4 times and it queued one Zealot in each gate. It makes sense to me as a solution because it is simply more flexible and powerful than how imprecise pressing Z once and getting a zeal in each gate would be.
Like the other way if you wanted 3 zeals and a templar your only option would be to either select all, hit z, then select one gate individually and cancel the zealot and replace it with a templar. Or to manually select 3 gates and then make 1 temp, but this wouldnt fit in with the playstyle too well considering most folks will probably want to key all similar buildings to one key.
I still don't know how they would do this effectively for Zerg.
Really? Maybe you don't understand what he meant then...
In his way (which I think is awesome!) you select your 12 hatcheries in one hotkey, hit sd, first one builds 3 drones, then you hit sz and you build zerglings... etc. You don't have to manually select each hatchery, yet you still build units 'one at a time' sort of
Kudos red.venom... very smart.
(edited a bit)
Ahhh... now I see. That would work for me.
I'm finished with the speculation/suggestion threads, or rather the whole S2 forum. I'll patiently wait and trust Blizzard. + Show Spoiler +
Um, wouldn't hitting 's' on the first hatchery make you select the larvae? This sorta screws over Zerg when it comes to multiple building selection, if it is in the 'Round Robin' style you describe.
On May 21 2007 18:16 Servolisk wrote: It's not as if it will be even used much by better players. It isn't even that useful IMO. In War3 I never used it... it is kind of noobish to macro the same unit at the same time. I really don't care about this feature, I'm just for improving interface in general. Selecting multiple buildings will hardly account for 60% of the game as some have said.
Multiple building selection as seen by the wc3 gamer (that is me, and I just want to show my point of view here):
1. Look at it from the force commander's perspective: as a general or whatever you just say "I need 10 tanks" and your subordinates give them to you, you don't have to send orders to each of your factories separately, they just start doing what you want.
2. Multiple building selection can CHANGE macroing style, it won't get rid of it (believe me or not, even in wc3 macro plays a big role in winning games, especially with humans).
Now to try and answer some issues you seem to have:
- not limited unit selection: won't happen I think, the small boxes showing currently selected units status are pretty important (especially in wc3 when you have to draw back your heavily wounded units out of the massive battle, compare it to big muta fight where you don't see shit and just check this health boxes). Same goes for buildings.
- zerg hatchery problem: I see 2 solutions here:
1. There won't be a hatchery but normal production buildings or whatever which would make them more similar to other races (the zerg have evolved) and which would make perfect sense (although it would take a part of the uniqueness).
2. When playing wc3 I can have as many buildings under one hotkey as units but I don't. People rarely have more than 2-3 buildings there and VERY rarely they're of different type (Lucifer for example has his ziggurats grouped with main, don't really know why, maybe for easier tower upgrades). Usually I keep the same buildings under one hotkey but:
- if I would be terran I would just use different hotkeys for my factories with add-ons and without them - if I would be zerg and going muta/ling for example I would keep 2-3 hotkeys of hatcheries, 1 producing lings, 1 mutas and the other one for drones or whatever else I need (unless they changed it so you can tab between hatcheries if they're grouped under single hotkey).
Also to add my thoughts on how would unit production work with multiple building selection:
If you select 2+ buildings of the same type, let's say barracks, and press 'm', all of them will start to produce marines, if you press 'm','m' they'll start producing rines and put another one in queue and so on (it is of course, if your resources allow).
I think that such changes would allow for much more dynamic gameplay.
Also a short statement about all of that being spectator friendly:
PEOPLE WANT TO SEE BATTLES, CRAZY MICRO AND SHIT, THEY DON'T WANT TO WATCH SOMEONE PRODUCE UNITS!!!
Can't you see that what's Blizzard trying to do is to take what's best in BOTH SC and WC3? It is a killer combination that would and WILL own all other RTSs.
Edit: I think that red.venom's thoughts on that matter are very accurate, more than mine ^_^
On May 21 2007 18:39 Polemarch wrote: i think the specifics like multiple building selection don't matter so much.
the main thing is that the game should be played at a speed that in mid/late game there's always more useful things to do than anybody can handle (even nada falters sometimes). this ensures that you're not just sitting around watching your units trudge across the screen (a la wc3).
if macroing took less time, then maybe you'd see more of other things -- like people executing 3 simultaneous storm drops while clearing mines, building supply, and stalling with their main army.
blizzard has thought about this, from pillars' posts in the other thread to the gameplay video commentary about ways skill differentials are rewarded. i do hope the requirement of being able to multitask at multiple locations on the map very quickly is kept in sc2 though, be it via macro chores or whatever. this keeps players in flow and gives them a clear goal to constantly try to improve towards
You see, that's precisely the problem, sure you can harass more or clear mine, drop, etc., etc but where's the macro?
Isn't that macro? being able to control things on a grand scale? So before you are able to harrass someone while mass producing from buildings, now you are able to harrass someone from two different angles controlling two separate groups. The needing to build more units is not as important a factor, opening up the ability to execute multiple tactics >_<
(edit: this post moves too fast... was originally below that post above)
I was talking about macro purely in the RTS sense, which is, as I understand it, resource management. What you are suggesting is to make SC2 WC3, just on a much more massive scale. 90% micro and 10% macro.
To me, that's not really ALL macro is.
Really though, think about what I said:
You are harrassing with a small mutalisk force, while also sending out some hydraling to kill an expansion. You're also managing a small drop of zerglings on his main in secret. Your simultaneously trying to micro some zerglings at one of your expansions to kill off some goons. Meanwhile back at your base, you are creating units effortlessly, allowing for a MUCH more entertaining game to both watch and play. Unless you REALLY do find clicking a building and queueing a unit entertaining.
Or
You are harrassing with a small mutalisk force, while you are creating units from your 12 hatcheries. You've blindly sent in a small hydraling force but you didn't notice the DTs cutting you to shit, etc. Or these things don't even happen at all because you're busy queueing units.
I know, a bit of an extreme example here, but it's not too improbable the PROS who have great macro currently wouldn't be able to handle so many tasks like this
Why is the selection and queueing of units such a necessary thing for many of you to show 'skill' in multi-tasking?
For red.venom's idea, I love it too. To circumvent the problem he illustrates, people can always hotkey their 8 factories into two groups: 4 factories for tanks, 4 factories for vultures
On May 21 2007 18:39 Polemarch wrote: i think the specifics like multiple building selection don't matter so much.
the main thing is that the game should be played at a speed that in mid/late game there's always more useful things to do than anybody can handle (even nada falters sometimes). this ensures that you're not just sitting around watching your units trudge across the screen (a la wc3).
if macroing took less time, then maybe you'd see more of other things -- like people executing 3 simultaneous storm drops while clearing mines, building supply, and stalling with their main army.
blizzard has thought about this, from pillars' posts in the other thread to the gameplay video commentary about ways skill differentials are rewarded. i do hope the requirement of being able to multitask at multiple locations on the map very quickly is kept in sc2 though, be it via macro chores or whatever. this keeps players in flow and gives them a clear goal to constantly try to improve towards
You see, that's precisely the problem, sure you can harass more or clear mine, drop, etc., etc but where's the macro?
Isn't that macro? being able to control things on a grand scale? So before you are able to harrass someone while mass producing from buildings, now you are able to harrass someone from two different angles controlling two separate groups. The needing to build more units is not as important a factor, opening up the ability to execute multiple tactics >_<
(edit: this post moves too fast... was originally below that post above)
I was talking about macro purely in the RTS sense, which is, as I understand it, resource management. What you are suggesting is to make SC2 WC3, just on a much more massive scale. 90% micro and 10% macro.
To me, that's not really ALL macro is.
Really though, think about what I said:
You are harrassing with a small mutalisk force, while also sending out some hydraling to kill an expansion. You're also managing a small drop of zerglings on his main in secret. Your simultaneously trying to micro some zerglings at one of your expansions to kill off some goons. Meanwhile back at your base, you are creating units effortlessly, allowing for a MUCH more entertaining game to both watch and play. Unless you REALLY do find clicking a building and queueing a unit entertaining.
Or
You are harrassing with a small mutalisk force, while you are creating units from your 12 hatcheries. You've blindly sent in a small hydraling force but you didn't notice the DTs cutting you to shit, etc. Or these things don't even happen at all because you're busy queueing units.
I know, a bit of an extreme example here, but it's not too improbable the PROS who have great macro currently wouldn't be able to handle so many tasks like this
Why is the selection and queueing of units such a necessary thing for many of you to show 'skill' in multi-tasking?
For red.venom's idea, I love it too. To circumvent the problem he illustrates, people can always hotkey their 8 factories into two groups: 4 factories for tanks, 4 factories for vultures
(edited a bit for clarity)
The only reason that your first example is impressive is because we are looking at it still from a BW prospective. If the entire game would all come down to micro, what is the difference between being able to click fast with units and being able to click fast with buildings?
Like I said before, it isn't so much that we want being able to be able to click faster a means to widen a skill gap, we want to force players to make split second decisions, to force them to take their attention off micro and focus on macroing calculate the cost of making reinforcements to the cost of losing that battle.
The thing that made SC so special is because it had balance between micro and macro and the mechanical factors is one of the reasons why it requires so much practice and makes it a sport. So just because someone has practiced to become faster than you and you don't have the same amount of time to put into it, suddenly, you should be given a handicap? I'm not saying this because I am afraid of change, not because I think my time practicing BW would be wasted, but because I would like to see SC2 enjoy the same longevity that BW enjoys, and if unlimited selection makes the game "too easy", it will easily die out once casual gamers have had their fix.
what is the difference between being able to click fast with units and being able to click fast with buildings?
The units are moving?
But seriously, you wrote:
we want to force players to make split second decisions, to force them to take their attention off micro and focus on macroing calculate the cost of making reinforcements to the cost of losing that battle
Have you ever thought that if you focus much more on micro in this situation you might not need to make any reinforcements and spend your resources on upgrades/tech or other stuff? Or that you can make your enemy need reinforcements much more than you?
Go play some wc3, it will teach you to value every single piece of resources you gather, and from what I've seen in the gameplay videos you will really HAVE to focus more on micro because the tides of battle will be turning faster.
On May 21 2007 18:45 red.venom wrote: A good solution to this IMO would be if you select multiple buildings for the unit queues to "round robin" through the buildings. So you select 4 gateways, hit Z 4 times and it queued one Zealot in each gate. It makes sense to me as a solution because it is simply more flexible and powerful than how imprecise pressing Z once and getting a zeal in each gate would be.
Like the other way if you wanted 3 zeals and a templar your only option would be to either select all, hit z, then select one gate individually and cancel the zealot and replace it with a templar. Or to manually select 3 gates and then make 1 temp, but this wouldnt fit in with the playstyle too well considering most folks will probably want to key all similar buildings to one key.
If you attempted to do the round robin thing in the middle of building other units the game would just choose the production structure that is next in terms of speed. Simple.
Personally I think something regarding selecting all unit structures will be necessary, because Zerg players are going to be able to select all larvaes at once so OO;
The round robin system is pretty much what is implemented now, as far as I can tell from the videos. And I must say, the more I think about it, the less threatening it seems. I'm averse to change as much as the next guy, but the difference between the round robin system and SC's current macro when you have 6 factories is about 5 button presses/clicks. Honestly, thats not going to ruin the game. If anything, it will free up hotkeys for doing other things, like microing things you normally wouldn't.
I think starcraft 2 is gettin more like age of empires 2, i mean multi selecting buildings, unlimited cap, and mass units it's all in empires2, and empires 2 is a macro management game
we want to force players to make split second decisions, to force them to take their attention off micro and focus on macroing calculate the cost of making reinforcements to the cost of losing that battle
Have you ever thought that if you focus much more on micro in this situation you might not need to make any reinforcements? Or that you can make your enemy need reinforcements much more than you?
Go play some wc3, it will teach you to value every single piece of resources you gather, and from what I've seen in the gameplay videos you will really HAVE to focus more on micro because the tides of battle will be turning faster.
Yes, moving justifies disregarding hand speed for one thing and using hand speed as a means to remove another. :|
That's just it. I don't want WC3, I DON'T WANT TO MICRO ALL THE TIME. If I did, I would be playing WC3. SC should be about micro AND MACRO.
[QUOTE]On May 21 2007 19:37 SoleSteeler wrote: [QUOTE]On May 21 2007 18:56 mahnini wrote: Why is the selection and queueing of units such a necessary thing for many of you to show 'skill' in multi-tasking? [/QUOTE]have you never enjoyed watching a fpvod? honestly you're saying it was enjoyable purely because you could see the strategy you couldn't outside of fp, you're not astounded by their mouse grace and mutlitasking mindstate? to those of you who may think it's not right to be overpowered by mouse speed alone, i'd like to see you analyze a replay, and know what's going on in the proper detail. i don't think it's that common to mass game enough to develope sense or intriquette build order knowledge, etc, without having the technique to back it up. some people enjoy getting good at the game on a lower level mostly just through better macro and micro, and there's nothing wrong with that. they work for that skill that can beat your probably inadequet strategy anyway. that adds to the dynamics of the game.
You can still overpower someone in mouse speed with multi selection though. I can't figure out why some don't see this point. The newb will select 200 units and A click. The pro will do the same, but will 300APM his ass when the battle actually happens. 300 apm devoted to the actual battle will be far more entertaining then seeing it split between battle and building, IMO. Plus, with multi selection we will see bigger battles more common thus forcing the player to have to micro each big battle in order to come out the victor.
Multi selection will not hinder craft2 in any way shape or form... it only Hinders SC1 cuz its wasn't designed for it. SC2 will be.
On May 21 2007 20:31 DenariusJay wrote: You can still overpower someone in mouse speed with multi selection though. I can't figure out why some don't see this point. The newb will select 200 units and A click. The pro will do the same, but will 300APM his ass when the battle actually happens. 300 apm devoted to the actual battle will be far more entertaining then seeing it split between battle and building, IMO. Plus, with multi selection we will see bigger battles more common thus forcing the player to have to micro each big battle in order to come out the victor.
Multi selection will not hinder craft2 in any way shape or form... it only Hinders SC1 cuz its wasn't designed for it. SC2 will be.
On May 21 2007 20:07 mahnini wrote: That's just it. I don't want WC3, I DON'T WANT TO MICRO ALL THE TIME. If I did, I would be playing WC3. SC should be about micro AND MACRO.
Also, we are discussing multiple building selection.
Being good at StarCraft takes mastery of so many individual skills, which in turns make the game fucking cool. To be good at StarCraft is like I'm good at this, plus this, plus this, plus and so on.
Making the game easier via the interface takes away some of those pluses. Yeah, there's more to the game than cycling through your buildings, but it is a significant part of the game because it affects your ability to micro a battle and keep producing smoothly, you have less time to think because of the additional task, it affects all those things.
[offtopic] Maybe Grrrr make a come back for SC:2 and own everyone again *0*, and many other retired progamers... that's would be kind of cool.[/offtopic]
I do share the opinion of Overmind77... I just don't think that MBS be the Panacea for noobs. You can't kill an enemy army using just tanks, or just marines. You need support units. The feature will be there, but in War3 sux because you just use units to protect heroes, wich are the key for victory.
In SC, you need a mix because every unit it's important, Macro it's as important as the units you will produce. If you want just one or two high templars, you still need to pick just one gateway.
If this actually happens then what Blizzard said about making SC2 more competitive is kinda crap, since they are removing one of the most important elements in the game that distinguishes noobs from pros. Removing macro from the game also has another drawback imo, players will focus more on micro than macro meaning that after a short period of time more and more people will be able to pull off "godly" moves, like killing 1 lurker with 1 marine, or sucessful mutalisk harass against marines. Removing the element of macroing also reduces the gap between players when it comes to micro, cause while they are microing they won't be forced to pay attention to anything else.
And when macro becomes easier for players, it doesn't really matter that much when they lose their armies cause with the push of a button they will have a new bunch of troops waiting for them in their base. It's like fastmap where every player has 50+ gates, even though units are getting smashed by the dozen, most of the time the battles lead nowhere since both players are massing out troops at the same rate and with the same efficiency, leading to a constant stalemate.
How can this change be seen as a step towards competitive gaming? I honestly have no idea...
On May 21 2007 21:44 Masashige wrote: Oh, I just realized the dropships now have to 'land' in order to drop units. I guess that means no more clutch drop moves.
yeah but why would you have instantaneous drop/reload, its not realistic and it'd only be in there for that "gosu micro move"
i dunno..... i see what people are saying, but at the same time macro will be very very easy; too easy, i think. you could focus almost entirely on assaults and sitting in your base would leave very little to do. i like that there's a gap between pros and noobs. this eliminates alot of that gap =/ i do however agree with CharlieMurphy when he saids "I think maybe the selection of multiple static defense structures is ok but unit producers is not."
but remember, what you hate to think your opponent can do, you can do yourself. so the only way to compensate for these "losses" is just to find a way to be better at everything "new" in general, thus finding some new skills to exceed at.
i'm sure come the day we all play SC2, the good players will find a way to distinguish themselves from the rest. it's always going to be like that, micro'ing and macro'ing in BW will always be in our hearts and we'll fight for it, but in the end, those terms may have different forms of execution to go along with them with SC2. this is pretty much new and fair game for everyone, so the only way to make sure you'll excel at SC2 is to not let your thoughts of BW get in the way too much.
Just think about this: say Blizzard makes the game noob-friendly by adding autocast, automining for workers, multiple building selection and a bunch of other stuff. OK so it will be easier and they will have their fun, but after a short period of time doing those limited actions over and over again will become boring and they will not have anything to drive them towards improvement, cause there is nothing to improve on. In StarCraft if you can't micro your rines against lurkers what do you do? Do you complain to Blizzard to make it easier or do you STFU and TRAIN YOUR ASS OFF AND ENJOY THE PROCESS OF IMPROVING?
Distinguish the difference between "Strategy" and "Real-Time Strategy", cause the latter is all what StarCraft and StarCraft II is about.
StarCraft has become a success because of the dedicated players, not because of the noobs. The top players and progamers have made this game into what it is today, the most competitive RTS in the world.
if any of you have ever played warcraft 3 for more than 5 minutes you'd have noticed the multiple building selection system is REALLY INEFFICIENT IN DECIDING WHERE TO QUEUE NEW UNITS
it makes no effort to take into consideration the amount of time left for the next unit to pop, and unless you have enough money to queue every barracks selected at once, will frequently double-queue units when there is still an empty barracks in the selection. no pro is going to trust it to efficiently macro!
I'm pretty sure that this entire post is pointless, because PRODUCTION ISN'T BEING DONE THE SAME WAY.
EDIT: Someone make a new thread with this info. It's important. I can't make new posts for 8 more days.
Check this:
A single Gateway/Warp Gate is constantly producing a single generic unit (I'm assuming only 1).
When that single unit is ready, it is your job to select which type of unit you want it to be and to bring it onto the battlefield INSTANTLY (and paying for it). After you do this, the Gateway/Warp Gate starts producing another one *automatically*.
So, in effect, this will make it even more important to multitask. Since you cant just select your Gateway and spam 5 zealots because there is only 1 available, you will have to make sure you are releasing your units all the time as they are available otherwise you will fall behind.
So basically this makes everyones whinging about being able to select and build from multiple production buildings pointless.
Here's the proof:
For proof - check the video. ~ 5:20 when he warps the Stalkers in from a Warp Gate There are 4 Warp Gates selected, and each mini icon on the right of the HUD shows there being 4 units available. That is, you can select to create 4 zealots, 4 stalkers, 4 immortals or any combination of the above INSTANTLY (if you have the resources). Once the available numbers reach 0 you can clearly see the cooldown/build timer on the icons!
Btw, a Stalker costs 125 minerals and 50 gas atm. (You can work it out when he warps the first one in, by the resources lost)
Same thing at ~7:10 when he warps the Zealots in from a Warp Gate
On May 21 2007 21:44 Masashige wrote: Oh, I just realized the dropships now have to 'land' in order to drop units. I guess that means no more clutch drop moves.
yeah but why would you have instantaneous drop/reload, its not realistic and it'd only be in there for that "gosu micro move"
On May 21 2007 23:43 nagash wrote: I'm pretty sure that this entire post is pointless, because PRODUCTION ISN'T BEING DONE THE SAME WAY.
EDIT: Someone make a new thread with this info. It's important. I can't make new posts for 8 more days.
Check this:
A single Gateway/Warp Gate is constantly producing a single generic unit (I'm assuming only 1).
When that single unit is ready, it is your job to select which type of unit you want it to be and to bring it onto the battlefield INSTANTLY (and paying for it). After you do this, the Gateway/Warp Gate starts producing another one *automatically*.
So, in effect, this will make it even more important to multitask. Since you cant just select your Gateway and spam 5 zealots because there is only 1 available, you will have to make sure you are releasing your units all the time as they are available otherwise you will fall behind.
So basically this makes everyones whinging about being able to select and build from multiple production buildings pointless.
Here's the proof:
For proof - check the video. ~ 5:20 when he warps the Stalkers in from a Warp Gate There are 4 Warp Gates selected, and each mini icon on the right of the HUD shows there being 4 units available. That is, you can select to create 4 zealots, 4 stalkers, 4 immortals or any combination of the above INSTANTLY (if you have the resources). Once the available numbers reach 0 you can clearly see the cooldown/build timer on the icons!
Btw, a Stalker costs 125 minerals and 50 gas atm. (You can work it out when he warps the first one in, by the resources lost)
Same thing at ~7:10 when he warps the Zealots in from a Warp Gate
Hmmm that's a very interesting concept they put in there. If it is indeed like that, good job Blizzard. Will make each race's building completely unique, as the difference of a gateway and a barracks right now is basically nothing. But this makes each race completely unique. I like.
On May 22 2007 01:00 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: gateways on a cooldown is actually a really really cool concept
without build times to factor in i wonder how they'll balance the cost of each unit?
assuming that is the way it is of course
Yeah, they'll really have to inflate the cost of more powerful units. This is actually a really cool idea and makes sense with the whole protoss warping in units thing.
Edit:
On May 22 2007 01:03 nagash wrote: It may be that build times will still be different for each unit (ie. Zealot becomes available first, then Immortal 10 secs later or something, etc..)
That's also a great idea, something like the unit selection squares are grayed out until the time is sufficient. Awesome. Nice find btw. I'm downloading the high res gameplay trailer now so hopefully I can confirm it.
Didn't read the whole thread but I think what matters most, before even the the influence on the skill gap (even though this is an issue... but it sounds like the developers care about it), is the balance between micro and macro. I don't want to be able to go 6s7t8v every 20 or so seconds to macro well (I'm thinking about workers' rally points to minerals too). Macro needs to require time and needs to represent about 50% of the gameplay, like SC1. It might be mostly repetitive tasks, but production is not something extremely thrilling anyway.
In other words players should still have to make choices between controlling his/her army better or instead giving an edge to production while leaving units on their own for longer amounts of time.
If macro is too easy, then that choice will disappear, and the game will become either too easy or too micro-oriented (or both), which I think no one wants.
On May 22 2007 01:00 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: gateways on a cooldown is actually a really really cool concept
without build times to factor in i wonder how they'll balance the cost of each unit?
assuming that is the way it is of course
Yeah, they'll really have to inflate the cost of more powerful units. This is actually a really cool idea and makes sense with the whole protoss warping in units thing.
On May 22 2007 01:03 nagash wrote: It may be that build times will still be different for each unit (ie. Zealot becomes available first, then Immortal 10 secs later or something, etc..)
That's also a great idea, something like the unit selection squares are grayed out until the time is sufficient. Awesome. Nice find btw. I'm downloading the high res gameplay trailer now so hopefully I can confirm it.
Yeh well, that's what I'm assuming the "available" numbers are. Either it's that there is 4 available time-wise (ie. first would be 4 zealots, 10 secs later or whatever, 4 stalkers come up, etc). if thats the way it is.
The other possibility is it's money wise (ie. you can afford 4 zealots, you can afford 4 stalkers, etc)
Right now atleast it's not a money limitation, in the gameplay video the player had thousands of minerals left but still couldn't build anymore Zealots. I think the gateways generate units over time up to a maximum cap, maybe 4 per gateway?
On May 22 2007 01:25 Zironic wrote: Right now atleast it's not a money limitation, in the gameplay video the player had thousands of minerals left but still couldn't build anymore Zealots. I think the gateways generate units over time up to a maximum cap, maybe 4 per gateway?
There is really no way of knowing how many per gateway. The only safe assumption is 1 per gateway because when he had 4 gateways selected there were 4 available, and when he had 12 gateways selected there was 12 available.
On May 22 2007 01:18 PoP wrote: Didn't read the whole thread but I think what matters most, before even the the influence on the skill gap (even though this is an issue... but it sounds like the developers care about it), is the balance between micro and macro. I don't want to be able to go 6s7t8v every 20 or so seconds to macro well (I'm thinking about workers' rally points to minerals too). Macro needs to require time and needs to represent about 50% of the gameplay, like SC1. It might be mostly repetitive tasks, but production is not something extremely thrilling anyway.
In other words players should still have to make choices between controlling his/her army better or instead giving an edge to production while leaving units on their own for longer amounts of time.
If macro is too easy, then that choice will disappear, and the game will become either too easy or too micro-oriented (or both), which I think no one wants.
Perfect. This balance is a huge reason why brood war is such an awesome game. Without this balance time is no longer an important resource.
Okay, went into the HD trailer and looked at it... when he had 4 gateways selected, there was a small "4" next to the build unit icons and the number decreased as he warped in one unit. So that establishes that protoss will build differently than they do right now.
However, that doesn't answer if each unit will have differing "cool down" periods. Example: you can build zealot after 40 seconds, stalkers at 50 seconds, etc. After looking at the time when he had 12 gateways selected, we can conclude the gateways will have differing cool down rates for each unit.
Look at this picture:
Zealots are at 12 but other units are at 10.
EDIT: hold on, looking at the picture more closely... and all the numbers are the same, huh? damn. And seeing as he had 16 gateways selected, the number is probably 16. ;o
It is really dependant on how they address the construction of units per race. It is one of those things where people are just going to have to wait and see, don;t lose hope yet. Personally, I like how SC plays as far as unit construction management goes, so anything that helps me build I will probably look negatively on.
I’m surprised there isn’t much talk about the unlimited unit selection. This makes managing “groups” of units much harder, it makes selecting individual units to micro as they take damage much harder, and overall decreases how much micro you can do for your units. But I will just have to wait and see.
BTW, hello all Aussies I remember, and some USAers ^_^
Starcraft is more about micro and macro. It started as a macro/strategy game way back when. As it released popular in north america it was, much more popular in korea yet. As koreans spent hours upon hours battling eachother, north americans were playing bgh. Eventually koreans became so much faster with the keyboard and mouse, and smarter at planning their next move, that the skill gap increased. There will always be a big skill gap between the top foreigners and the top koreans until sc1 is replaced by sc2. For those that say mass selecting is a bad thing, think of how many times it would have been convenient for you while you were playing. You can now actually send those 80 units into battle at the same time without worrying that you missed a click. You can focus your units abilities without having to constantly 1 a left click 2 a left click to rally your units to the heart of the battle. You can build from those 8 gateways seemlessly even though they may be screens apart and carry out a battle or a raid in the meantime. In starcraft 1 which was released back in the obsolute year of 1998, the only reason people chose to hotkey each building and select 12 at a time isn't because it was particularly fun or logical, its just because that was the only choice and it was good enough at the time. I want to be able to compete at high level starcraft 2 when it comes out without having to play 8 hours day in and day out to compete with koreans, or focus all my daily brain power into the game. I'd like to carve a bigger slice of strategy and less micro and macro. Starcraft is a "Real Time *Strategy" not a "Real Time Macro and Micro". And there is no real time macro or micro games being released today. Don't think top level koreans just have micro and macro going on for them, their level of strategy is higher then foreigners despite common consencus, after battle it out so many more hours after hours after hours then us. I'd like to be able to enjoy starcraft and compete without a 300apm korean mauling me game after game. Besides, manually selecting each building/group of 12 units is like working in a sweatshop when theres a McDonald's across the street.
All I can say is...I sincerely hope english is not your first language. Besides why work in a sweatshop; when theres a mcdonalds across the street? Maybe the mcdonalds isn't hiring? Seeing as there's a freakin' sweat shop across the street. They probably have a large source of labor. K.
On May 22 2007 02:08 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: All I can say is...I sincerely hope english is not your first language.
There's nothing wrong with the language in that post, formatting however could be better. However formatting is universal for all languages so what language is his first is rather irrelevant. I think I agree with most of the post.
All he is saying, basically, is he want's the game to be easier, because he wasn't good enough to compete at the highest level before. Brood war is extremely strategically complex. I'm sorry you didnt progress enough to realize this. And my comment about the language was regarding the analogy. Why work harder than you have to? Because...that's what makes the game fun and challenging.
Brood wars was indeed strategically complex, and I think SC2 will be even more complex and deep.
However I don't think having to have 300 APM should be a requirement to just build your army :O
However it seems that Blizzard is revamping the whole unit production system to make factions even more unique then they were so I think multiple building selection will be moot.
Zironic, it isnt Not at all. There have been fantastic brood war players with only 150 apm. 300 apm is only required to compete at the absoulute highest levels of gameplay on a game that has been out for over 5 years. That does not mean that brood war is too hard and should automatically be made easier And yes I agree. I'm really looking forward to it too.
On May 22 2007 02:31 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: Well hell people can type research reports at over 100 WORDS PER MINUTE. Is 150 apm really that much...no
The people that type 100 words a minute are also scary. Drifting off topic a little bit, sure there are people that can write research reports at 100 words a minute, but does that automaticly make them better then someone that writes the report at 50 words a minute?
I think multitasking should be important but I think it will be more interesting with blizzards new mechanics rather then limitations like having micro 20 gateways one by one.
And does running a marathon in 2 hours really better than running it in 20 hours?
Come on... in sports, certain skills are required to be good. If you cannot keep up with a 300 APM Korean because he has trained and trained and mastered his timing and technique, you deserve to lose. If the game is simplified too much to the point where multitasking is easy, then the game no longer becomes competitive.
Yes, I'm saying if YOU who practice much less can keep up with somebody who obviously practiced much more with relative ease, then everybody would be a freakin' pro. That = no fun = no competition = death of pro-sc2.
On May 22 2007 02:55 Klogon wrote: And does running a marathon in 2 hours really better than running it in 20 hours?
Come on... in sports, certain skills are required to be good. If you cannot keep up with a 300 APM Korean because he has trained and trained and mastered his timing and technique, you deserve to lose. If the game is simplified too much to the point where multitasking is easy, then the game no longer becomes competitive.
Yes, I'm saying if YOU who practice much less can keep up with somebody who obviously practiced much more with relative ease, then everybody would be a freakin' pro. That = no fun = no competition = death of pro-sc2.
You'll still have to be very good and practise alot. It's just that you won't need a huge APM to do tasks that should be really basic. Unit production and resource gathering are such basic parts of the game that they shouldn't require huge APMs.
However you'll still need to know Exactly what you're doing and how to exploit your opponents weaknesses, practise wouldn't be devauled in any way except that the basic tasks would get simpler.
E-Sports have never been meant to be a purely physical sport. When it comes to E-Sport Strategy games I've always thought of them as more like Chess where Strategical and Tactical brilliance is more important then pure physical skills, although in starcraft you'll have to be a much faster thinker then in alot of other games.
Ofcourse to become a pro you'll need both the physical skills and the brilliant mind but I don't think going between lots of buildings to build units is where such greatness should be shown. It's better if all that APM is channeled into more meaningfull things like battle micro and expansion.
If a brilliant player with a rather poor APM is up against a pretty mediocre player with a huge APM I think the brilliant player should have a decent chance to win and not lose just because the interface limits what he can do with his units and buildings.
So far everything blizzard has shown points towards them agreeing with me on this point(That APM should be used on gameplay and not basic tasks).
On May 22 2007 03:12 Zironic wrote: You'll still have to be very good and practise alot. It's just that you won't need a huge APM to do tasks that should be really basic. Unit production and resource gathering are such basic parts of the game that they shouldn't require huge APMs.
Well the thing is, macro is all (edit: not all, but a big part of it anyway) about basic, stupid, repetitive stuff. If you remove the repetitive part, if you automatize everything that can be automatized, you also remove most of the required macro. The idea isn't to force the players to do these tasks himself but to make them find/choose their own style between micro and macro. BW is so great (partly) because not only these two elements are "balanced", but also because you can be an amazing player whether you give priority to one or the other. However you'll never be able to handle both with full commitment, because the game is too fast. Even with 450 APM, NaDa makes some control mistakes he would never do if he didn't have to come back to his base to macro.
Unless they find a smart way to include a management solution which doesn't imply doing the same thing over and over again, the only way is to leave these tasks manual.
Honestly, all we want is a hard game (I mean hard to master, because it should be extremely easy to play) with half macro half micro, and where the player must choose between the two during games. Anyway, this is what SC is all about. If they can find a way to achieve this while automatizing all the repetitive stuff, then that's awesome.
(Btw, I'm not sure I understood that "pre-cooldown" thing. What difference does it make really? Apart from the fact you can't queue... I prolly missed something pretty obvious here.)
Nazgul and fisheye had some of the best non-korean macro in their day, neither player had much higher APM than 100.
Both were known for their strategic play AND their macro.
Just food for thought, you can macro well with low APM in SC too. I'm still loving my idea of having unlimited building select but only being able to build from 1 at once, but being able to jump from gate to gate by clicking some key (say tab).
On May 22 2007 03:12 Zironic wrote: You'll still have to be very good and practise alot. It's just that you won't need a huge APM to do tasks that should be really basic. Unit production and resource gathering are such basic parts of the game that they shouldn't require huge APMs.
Well the thing is, macro is all (edit: not all, but a big part of it anyway) about basic, stupid, repetitive stuff. If you remove the repetitive part, if you automatize everything that can be automatized, you also remove most of the required macro. The idea isn't to force the players to do these tasks himself but to make them find/choose their own style between micro and macro. BW is so great (partly) because not only these two elements are "balanced", but also because you can be an amazing player whether you give priority to one or the other. However you'll never be able to handle both with full commitment, because the game is too fast. Even with 450 APM, NaDa makes some control mistakes he would never do if he didn't have to come back to his base to macro.
Unless they find a smart way to include a management solution which doesn't imply doing the same thing over and over again, the only way is to leave these tasks manual.
Honestly, all we want is a hard game (I mean hard to master, because it should be extremely easy to play) with half macro half micro, and where the player must choose between the two during games. Anyway, this is what SC is all about. If they can find a way to achieve this while automatizing all the repetitive stuff, then that's awesome.
(Btw, I'm not sure I understood that "pre-cooldown" thing. What difference does it make really? Apart from the fact you can't queue... I prolly missed something pretty obvious here.)
It'll probably work like this.
Build gateway. Wait 10 sec (exact number will be carefully balanced). Now you can if you want pay 100 minerals to warp in a Zealot to the location around the gateway. Wait 10 more sec, now you can warp in a second one. When upgraded to Warp Gate it will allow you to warp it in anywhere you have a pylon (or warp prism).
The thing is, outside of Korea doing the same repetitive thing over and over again until mastery is frowned upon. Just look at the abysmal failure of korean MMO's outside of Korea. The game has to be fun and easy to play in and of itself. I trust Blizzard will manage this well with Starcraft 2. With World of Warcraft they've already demonstrated their ability to make a game both Asians with their love of repetitive game play and Western folk with their varied casual play can enjoy.
Multiple building selection is a bad idea. The unit control and multitasking that pro-gamers show in their games is impressive only because they are macroing at the same time. Harassing with mutalisks isn't hard at all. Harassing with mutalisks while macroing efficiently is hard. Removing macro will make the game easier for all and will reduce the skill-gap between pro-gamers and amateurs.
Warcraft3 had a lot of the mechanics simplified and it simply did not work out. Learn from your mistakes I would say. The amount of strategy in starcraft is simply too limited to allow it to become 90% of the game.
I wonder how come nobody until now has thought of queue-able upgrades in SC 2. I mean, take a look at Warcraft3: if you want to research ground armor lvl2 and ground weapons lvl2, and you have enough money for it you can click on both of them (in the same building), and after researching the first, the second starts automatically (just like creating units). This goes for placing building, in WC3 you can click your peon to build a farm, and when you select the location for the farm you hold SHIFT key - this will allow you to build multiple farms, if resources permit it: the worker will build each one, in the order you placed them.
IMO, this will not work out so good for SC 2. Upgrades are an essential part of the game, it's hard to manage the resources for them, and especially hard to remember to pump upgrades when ups take about 1-2 minutes to finish. Thus they become an important, if not crucial part of the game timing - it involves a lot of game 'sense' and experience to be able to start your upgrades at the right time(I'm referring to weapons/armor upgrades, not necessarily special abilities).
As for the buildings part, it's just really hard to make like 3 or 4 supply depots, when you're Terran and you're in a macro-fest game vs a toss: Imagine, at 160 population, toss already has 200/200, you're racing for a ~180 pop, to start that massive push : and all of a sudden, "Additional Supply Depots required" hits your screen, and you rush to your main, struggle to grab 3-4 SCVs from the 30 or so (a real fucking anthill), and with painstaking effort (sometimes) you manage to place 3-4 Supply Depots, one besides another, your SCVs getting in the way of each other. That requires skill to pull off, it's fantastic to watch NaDa or Oov for example, they line their supply's PERFECTLY, at mind-blowing speed. Conclusion : This also requires skill and experience + hand speed, and it's a truly subtle part of the game, differencing good players from great ones, and great ones from pros imho
So what do you think? TLnet pls discuss!
I wouldn't have posted this here if I wouldn't thought it's a little related to the topic at hand. Sorry to the OP, and thanks for supporting me
On May 22 2007 05:00 Zironic wrote: It'll probably work like this.
Build gateway. Wait 10 sec (exact number will be carefully balanced). Now you can if you want pay 100 minerals to warp in a Zealot to the location around the gateway. Wait 10 more sec, now you can warp in a second one. When upgraded to Warp Gate it will allow you to warp it in anywhere you have a pylon (or warp prism).
That's pretty much what I understood, but I still don't see how it changes anything. In War2 too I produce a footman, wait 10 sec, then I can pay XXX gold to make another, etc. Build time is "carefully balanced" too in that case. Well I can see the little difference that it makes but not how this will have any impact. And it sounds like something Protoss-only anyway.
The thing is, outside of Korea doing the same repetitive thing over and over again until mastery is frowned upon. Just look at the abysmal failure of korean MMO's outside of Korea. The game has to be fun and easy to play in and of itself. I trust Blizzard will manage this well with Starcraft 2.
It needs to be easy to play and as hard as possible to master, or it won't last nearly as long as a competitive game (imho). I think SC was easy to play, btw, but you just can't expect to have a decent level if you don't practice.
With World of Warcraft they've already demonstrated their ability to make a game both Asians with their love of repetitive game play and Western folk with their varied casual play can enjoy.
I don't think SC1, despite all his "repetitive" macro tasks, is known as hard to play or anything. You can have fun and enjoy the game with 20 APM, and you can learn the game extremely fast anyway.
On May 22 2007 05:00 Zironic wrote: It'll probably work like this.
Build gateway. Wait 10 sec (exact number will be carefully balanced). Now you can if you want pay 100 minerals to warp in a Zealot to the location around the gateway. Wait 10 more sec, now you can warp in a second one. When upgraded to Warp Gate it will allow you to warp it in anywhere you have a pylon (or warp prism).
That's pretty much what I understood, but I still don't see how it changes anything. In War2 too I produce a footman, wait 10 sec, then I can pay XXX gold to make another, etc. Build time is "carefully balanced" too in that case. Well I can see the little difference that it makes but not how this will have any impact. And it sounds like something Protoss-only anyway.
The thing is, outside of Korea doing the same repetitive thing over and over again until mastery is frowned upon. Just look at the abysmal failure of korean MMO's outside of Korea. The game has to be fun and easy to play in and of itself. I trust Blizzard will manage this well with Starcraft 2.
It needs to be easy to play and as hard as possible to master, or it won't last nearly as long as a competitive game (imho). I think SC was easy to play, btw, but you just can't expect to have a decent level if you don't practice.
With World of Warcraft they've already demonstrated their ability to make a game both Asians with their love of repetitive game play and Western folk with their varied casual play can enjoy.
I don't think SC1, despite all his "repetitive" macro tasks, is known as hard to play or anything. You can have fun and enjoy the game with 20 APM, and you can learn the game extremely fast anyway.
The point of the new protoss ability is that you can create units almost instantly (In the video it took them 2-3 seconds to warp in). This makes the protoss able to go "Haha, you attack my seemingly undefended base, say hello to my 20 newly warped in Zealots", instead of "Fuck, I can't get any unit out of my gateway faster then 10 seconds".
SC1 isn't known to be hard to play, but I think that if SC1 came out right now with just better graphics people would say that the UI is archaic and hard to use compared to other new RTS games like Company of Heroes, Command and Conquer 3 and Supreme Commander.
Since the Interfaces in RTS games have evolved alot since Starcraft came out I think that Starcraft 2 has to follow suit to some extent. Ofcourse not at the expense of micro/macro balance but Blizzard will probably replace the repetetive tasks with something else.
On May 22 2007 05:00 Zironic wrote: It'll probably work like this.
Build gateway. Wait 10 sec (exact number will be carefully balanced). Now you can if you want pay 100 minerals to warp in a Zealot to the location around the gateway. Wait 10 more sec, now you can warp in a second one. When upgraded to Warp Gate it will allow you to warp it in anywhere you have a pylon (or warp prism).
That's pretty much what I understood, but I still don't see how it changes anything. In War2 too I produce a footman, wait 10 sec, then I can pay XXX gold to make another, etc. Build time is "carefully balanced" too in that case. Well I can see the little difference that it makes but not how this will have any impact. And it sounds like something Protoss-only anyway.
The thing is, outside of Korea doing the same repetitive thing over and over again until mastery is frowned upon. Just look at the abysmal failure of korean MMO's outside of Korea. The game has to be fun and easy to play in and of itself. I trust Blizzard will manage this well with Starcraft 2.
It needs to be easy to play and as hard as possible to master, or it won't last nearly as long as a competitive game (imho). I think SC was easy to play, btw, but you just can't expect to have a decent level if you don't practice.
Ye, SC1 was great fun, I played lots of it until WC3 came out. However the RTS genre has evolved since SC1 came out and I think a lot of the more casual players will dislike the game if they have to play with an archaic UI after getting spoiled by great games like Company of Heroes and Supreme Commander.
The point of the new building system for the Protoss is that it lets them build units instantly. The ability to have 20 Zealots pop out of nowhere could become a really important game mechanic. Instead of "Fuck I'm attacked and I can't get any units for atleast 10 seconds" it'll be "Fear my ambush of newly warped in Zealots sealing your escape route". With World of Warcraft they've already demonstrated their ability to make a game both Asians with their love of repetitive game play and Western folk with their varied casual play can enjoy.
I don't think SC1, despite all his "repetitive" macro tasks, is known as hard to play or anything. You can have fun and enjoy the game with 20 APM, and you can learn the game extremely fast anyway.
what's your point?
The forum ate my original post, edited it to fix :=)
On May 22 2007 05:18 Zironic wrote: The point of the new protoss ability is that you can create units almost instantly (In the video it took them 2-3 seconds to warp in). This makes the protoss able to go "Haha, you attack my seemingly undefended base, say hello to my 20 newly warped in Zealots", instead of "Fuck, I can't get any unit out of my gateway faster then 10 seconds".
I see. But you also lose macro time if you wait (because units cannot be queued it seems): is the surprise effect worth it? Anyway, instead of speculating, let's wait until we have more details on this.
SC1 isn't known to be hard to play, but I think that if SC1 came out right now with just better graphics people would say that the UI is archaic and hard to use compared to other new RTS games like Company of Heroes, Command and Conquer 3 and Supreme Commander.
Since the Interfaces in RTS games have evolved alot since Starcraft came out I think that Starcraft 2 has to follow suit to some extent. Ofcourse not at the expense of micro/macro balance but Blizzard will probably replace the repetetive tasks with something else.
I agree with that. If they can find ideas for non-repetitive macro tasks, which require enough player time, then of course we'll all be happy.
On May 22 2007 05:18 Zironic wrote: The point of the new protoss ability is that you can create units almost instantly (In the video it took them 2-3 seconds to warp in). This makes the protoss able to go "Haha, you attack my seemingly undefended base, say hello to my 20 newly warped in Zealots", instead of "Fuck, I can't get any unit out of my gateway faster then 10 seconds".
I see. But you also lose macro time if you wait (because units cannot be queued it seems): is the surprise effect worth it? Anyway, instead of speculating, let's wait until we have more details on this.
SC1 isn't known to be hard to play, but I think that if SC1 came out right now with just better graphics people would say that the UI is archaic and hard to use compared to other new RTS games like Company of Heroes, Command and Conquer 3 and Supreme Commander.
Since the Interfaces in RTS games have evolved alot since Starcraft came out I think that Starcraft 2 has to follow suit to some extent. Ofcourse not at the expense of micro/macro balance but Blizzard will probably replace the repetetive tasks with something else.
I agree with that. If they can find ideas for non-repetitive macro tasks, which require enough player time, then of course we'll all be happy.
On their website they seem very fond of the idea to send a Warp Prism into enemy territory and then building a whole army over there instantly. It's kinda like being able to do a Reaver drop with only one shuttle.
On April 28 2007 01:21 Guybrush wrote: Im tired of losing because I dont play 24/7 - make the game less fastpaced.
Ive practiced 24/7 and have perfect mechanics now - make the game fastpaced.
This is basically the same discussion as the thread I posted this in.
If stuff like automatic mining with rally points, multiple selection of gates and unlimited selection of units was implented in the game, the game would be easier thus more competition, but less interesting to observe.
The reason BW is amazing to observe is because we know what it takes to pull of the stuff they do. We know how hard it is to produce from a massive amount of barrackses, factories, gateways, while being in a battle, we know how hard it is to perfectly clone irradiates in a short time, we know how hard it is to micro those mutalisks good while spending cash, and we know how difficult it is to perfectly mudang storm 4-5 storms at once. We know the hours of practice required to do this and that's why we admire them.
Those reasons is why it's E-Sport - because it does take fast hands to pull of the stuff you see, and it does require much practice to get fast hands. If anyone could get the same skill with equal amount of practice it wouldnt be a "sport" or a "competition one would devote job-like time to".
Remember if E-Sport is going to grow - the practice-element has to be there or else noone would bother being progamers because they could easily compete with less practice which wouldnt exactly make the progaming scene grow.
Also if the pool of the elite players got too big the fans would get confused, and not be able to get to know each player. BW would not have been as popular if Boxer, Yellow and Garimto didnt dominate at a point. It's important to have personalities for every race in order for the fans to identify themselves with them.
If theres a new player who wins the biggest league everytime there would be less fans because only the hard-core fans knew who the player was. I remember someone wrote here once that koreans didnt follow progaming on as huge scale as expected but if someone mentioned it they would say "Lim Yo Hwan won this week?". It's like me saying "Federer won Nadal this weekend?". I dont particulary follow tennis, but I do know some of the best players.
If noone stood out as dominating then sure the game would be competitve as hell, but it wouldnt be interesting for other than the hardcore fans, because most fans identify with the player not neccessary his skills.
Theres alot of things that annoy me with Warcraft 3, but the biggest is probably the upkeep-thing. You actually get punished for macroing and focusing on having a better economy. You get less gold each time the worker returns a goldpatch the higher amount of units you have for those who didnt know that.
The second thing is all the spells. It's confusing to watch in a battle.
Third thing is the speed of the units. Yeah really impressing to move that unit when you had 3 seconds to do so and not 1 sec like when you dodge lurker-spines with marines.
Then finally theres the multiple selection building/automatic mining for workers with rally points - yet another anti-economic feature.
Finally my point is there has to be a balance between micro and macro. Naturally the game will start microintensive early on like with BW, and eventually be perfected with the supply of better macro.
If Blizzard wants the game to be successfull in Korea as a E-sport-game. Im pretty sure they have taken alot of inputs from them and Im sure we wont be disappointed.
On April 28 2007 01:21 Guybrush wrote: Im tired of losing because I dont play 24/7 - make the game less fastpaced.
Ive practiced 24/7 and have perfect mechanics now - make the game fastpaced.
This is basically the same discussion as the thread I posted this in.
If stuff like automatic mining with rally points, multiple selection of gates and unlimited selection of units was implented in the game, the game would be easier thus more competition, but less interesting to observe.
The reason BW is amazing to observe is because we know what it takes to pull of the stuff they do. We know how hard it is to produce from a massive amount of barrackses, factories, gateways, while being in a battle, we know how hard it is to perfectly clone irradiates in a short time, we know how hard it is to micro those mutalisks good while spending cash, and we know how difficult it is to perfectly mudang storm 4-5 storms at once. We know the hours of practice required to do this and that's why we admire them.
Those reasons is why it's E-Sport - because it does take fast hands to pull of the stuff you see, and it does require much practice to get fast hands. If anyone could get the same skill with equal amount of practice it wouldnt be a "sport" or a "competition one would devote job-like time to".
Remember if E-Sport is going to grow - the practice-element has to be there or else noone would bother being progamers because they could easily compete with less practice which wouldnt exactly make the progaming scene grow.
Also if the pool of the elite players got too big the fans would get confused, and not be able to get to know each player. BW would not have been as popular if Boxer, Yellow and Garimto didnt dominate at a point. It's important to have personalities for every race in order for the fans to identify themselves with them.
If theres a new player who wins the biggest league everytime there would be less fans because only the hard-core fans knew who the player was. I remember someone wrote here once that koreans didnt follow progaming on as huge scale as expected but if someone mentioned it they would say "Lim Yo Hwan won this week?". It's like me saying "Federer won Nadal this weekend?". I dont particulary follow tennis, but I do know some of the best players.
If noone stood out as dominating then sure the game would be competitve as hell, but it wouldnt be interesting for other than the hardcore fans, because most fans identify with the player not neccessary his skills.
Theres alot of things that annoy me with Warcraft 3, but the biggest is probably the upkeep-thing. You actually get punished for macroing and focusing on having a better economy. You get less gold each time the worker returns a goldpatch the higher amount of units you have for those who didnt know that.
The second thing is all the spells. It's confusing to watch in a battle.
Third thing is the speed of the units. Yeah really impressing to move that unit when you had 3 seconds to do so and not 1 sec like when you dodge lurker-spines with marines.
Then finally theres the multiple selection building/automatic mining for workers with rally points - yet another anti-economic feature.
Finally my point is there has to be a balance between micro and macro. Naturally the game will start microintensive early on like with BW, and eventually be perfected with the supply of better macro.
If Blizzard wants the game to be successfull in Korea as a E-sport-game. Im pretty sure they have taken alot of inputs from them and Im sure we wont be disappointed.
The thing is though, you can't make it a good E-Sport game at the expense of casual play. Yes Warcraft 3 was designed to punish macro a lot but I don't think the improved interface for unit and building selection was a part of that.
Macromanagement means to keep your economy running, expanding at the right moments to the best locations, picking the right upgrades, building towards and producing the right units in time, spying on the enemy, predicting his moves and, hopefully, outsmarting him. It requires knowledge about the tech-trees (for prerequisites), the map (where to defend, where to attack, where to expand) and potent unit-combinations (which units are most effective against enemy unit combinations).
Multitasking refers to being able to do many things at the same time. StarCraft enables the player to use a variety of shortcuts to jump to a specific position on the map and give fast orders. Having this skill means, for example, to defend and attack at the same time, while not neglecting your micro-management and still working efficiently towards your long-term goals. If the opponent is confident, he might try to distract you with something, usually surprise unit drops, for you to take care of in order to 'steal your time'.
If someone will explain to me how multiple building selection screws this up I would be truly thankful.
Why so many people can't understand some facts?
- even with multiple building selection there still will be macro and multitasking involved, it will be a mix of sc and wc3 (yes, you have this things in wc3, they're just different). The differences will be: different from sc: it will be simplier/faster and not so attention-demanding. different from wc3: it will be managing your resources on a far greater scale, massing units and buildings instead of creating few units from few buildings
- and actually when you talk about closing the skill gap I think that's exactly what Blizzard wants to do. They're releasing a completely new game (just imagine how wc3 is different from wc2) and if the very same people that are on the top now would be on the top again right from the start don't you think it would be boring? Sure all SC/WC3 players will have advantage over new people but why make it so drastic?
Those definitons arent what people usually think of when they read those terms, allthough I agree they make sense especially the Multitasking definition. The macromanagement definition seems way different from most players grasp of the term macro.
I think these are the most common presumptions of the two terms:
Macro = Focusing on getting the best possible economy and limiting as fast as possible. Tempest the T1-Protoss player is a perfect example of a player with exceptional macro.
Multitasking = The ability to do different actions at different places on the map at almost exactly same time. Best example I can think of is Nada dropping 5 different bases with 5 dropships at once vs Jy on Luna.
On May 22 2007 03:12 Zironic wrote: However you'll still need to know Exactly what you're doing and how to exploit your opponents weaknesses, practise wouldn't be devauled in any way except that the basic tasks would get simpler.
E-Sports have never been meant to be a purely physical sport. When it comes to E-Sport Strategy games I've always thought of them as more like Chess where Strategical and Tactical brilliance is more important then pure physical skills, although in starcraft you'll have to be a much faster thinker then in alot of other games.
that's your opinion on what qualifies as "purely physical." who is to say strategical and tactical brilliance isn't as physical as fast fingers? some people are fast, through genetics or practice or both. some people are brilliant strategically, through genetics or practice or both. you need both to be good at SC1, and i don't see why we should arbitrarily value one over the other like you seem to imply.
its ridiculously difficult to make a game as strategically deep as chess. there's always a ceiling for strategy and innovation and we've almost reached it for Brood War in Korea. look at the builds and training, it's down to a science. yes there are a few innovators like Boxer or Nal_rA, but everything is so regimented down to the second now (with practice partners, training, knowledge, etc) that its become a race to see who can multitask and execute better.
all sports will eventually come down to which player is faster or stronger. "strategy" is just something that is a lot easier to develop than speed. you can practice it more, and its accessible to the entire population. it's nice and exciting for us to say "wow he's strategically brilliant!" because it makes that player seem more like us. but when you really break it down, there are no more "slow but smart" players in BW. you have to be fast to be a pro brood war player, and you have to be fast and smart to be a champion. i'm sure there are plenty of dumb fast guys in korea that make it off purely memorized builds from coaches and practice partners, but have you seen a sub 200apm guy who's strategically brilliant? no, because those guys simply can't cut it. you can train perfect build orders and counters, you can't train nada multitask.
for example, it's similar to basketball. in the NBA we love stories the short guy that jumps really high, or maybe the guy who worked like crazy and knows everything about the game. but as the game evolves we're seeing 6'9" point guards and seven footers that can shoot 3's, and you don't see them lowering the basket to make the game "less physical."
for E-sports to succeed they have to embrace the physical aspect. this is what makes it a sport--the speed. everything else the average smart guy can learn.
Ofcourse to become a pro you'll need both the physical skills and the brilliant mind but I don't think going between lots of buildings to build units is where such greatness should be shown. It's better if all that APM is channeled into more meaningfull things like battle micro and expansion.
If a brilliant player with a rather poor APM is up against a pretty mediocre player with a huge APM I think the brilliant player should have a decent chance to win and not lose just because the interface limits what he can do with his units and buildings.
So far everything blizzard has shown points towards them agreeing with me on this point(That APM should be used on gameplay and not basic tasks).
Again, its your opinion what is "basic" and what is not. The key is finding the delicate balance between simply interface limitations and really dumbing down key multitask and speed skills. If you really want it to be about strategy why not just eliminate micro altogether and make macro automated?
That scenario about the brilliant player with rather poor APM is just like a short guy who knows everything about basketball but isn't big or tall enough versus a tall, athletic player who is dumb as fuck. Why does the short guy deserve a chance in the NBA just because he knows more or is strategically gifted? He can be a coach, but leave the playing to the tall people. In general strategy can be taught, but you can't teach speed or height.
Somewhere along the way people (especially the foreign community) seemed to see "strategical" brilliance in BW as something worth celebrating while "simply being faster" as something that shouldn't be. Like "he only beat him because he's faster" as if its something that's any less impressive. Well no duh, Michael Jordan only beats you because he can jump higher and shoot better.
The precedent for E-Sports is that speed and multitask are what separates normal people from the pros, and thats what makes it a sport.
On May 22 2007 06:06 Guybrush wrote: Those definitons arent what people usually think of when they read those terms, allthough I agree they make sense especially the Multitasking definition. The macromanagement definition seems way different from most players grasp of the term macro.
I think these are the most common presumptions of the two terms:
Macro = Focusing on getting the best possible economy and limiting as fast as possible. Tempest the T1-Protoss player is a perfect example of a player with exceptional macro.
Multitasking = The ability to do different actions at different places on the map at almost exactly same time. Best example I can think of is Nada dropping 5 different bases with 5 dropships at once vs Jy on Luna.
I still don't see even with those definitions how the game would become worse with some easier controls for the Macro. There would still be a huuge difference between someone good at macro and someone decent at it.
Macromanagement means to keep your economy running, expanding at the right moments to the best locations, picking the right upgrades, building towards and producing the right units in time, spying on the enemy, predicting his moves and, hopefully, outsmarting him. It requires knowledge about the tech-trees (for prerequisites), the map (where to defend, where to attack, where to expand) and potent unit-combinations (which units are most effective against enemy unit combinations).
Multitasking refers to being able to do many things at the same time. StarCraft enables the player to use a variety of shortcuts to jump to a specific position on the map and give fast orders. Having this skill means, for example, to defend and attack at the same time, while not neglecting your micro-management and still working efficiently towards your long-term goals. If the opponent is confident, he might try to distract you with something, usually surprise unit drops, for you to take care of in order to 'steal your time'.
If someone will explain to me how multiple building selection screws this up I would be truly thankful.
Why so many people can't understand some facts?
- even with multiple building selection there still will be macro and multitasking involved, it will be a mix of sc and wc3 (yes, you have this things in wc3, they're just different). The differences will be: different from sc: it will be simplier/faster and not so attention-demanding. different from wc3: it will be managing your resources on a far greater scale, massing units and buildings instead of creating few units from few buildings
- and actually when you talk about closing the skill gap I think that's exactly what Blizzard wants to do. They're releasing a completely new game (just imagine how wc3 is different from wc2) and if the very same people that are on the top now would be on the top again right from the start don't you think it would be boring? Sure all SC/WC3 players will have advantage over new people but why make it so drastic?
1. Imagine TvsZ with multiple building selection. Then tell me that 0m 9s is just as hard as manually clicking your 10+ raxes and producing marines and manually clicking all your command centers to make scvs. TvsZ would be much, much easier if you had multiple-building selection. To the point where I wonder if Z could ever win a starleague game that lasts longer than 5 minutes.
2. This is not what we mean when we are talking about closing the skill gap. We are talking about the skill gap between pro-gamers and amateurs in general, not the gap between the current pro-gamers and the current amateurs.
Macromanagement means to keep your economy running, expanding at the right moments to the best locations, picking the right upgrades, building towards and producing the right units in time, spying on the enemy, predicting his moves and, hopefully, outsmarting him. It requires knowledge about the tech-trees (for prerequisites), the map (where to defend, where to attack, where to expand) and potent unit-combinations (which units are most effective against enemy unit combinations).
Multitasking refers to being able to do many things at the same time. StarCraft enables the player to use a variety of shortcuts to jump to a specific position on the map and give fast orders. Having this skill means, for example, to defend and attack at the same time, while not neglecting your micro-management and still working efficiently towards your long-term goals. If the opponent is confident, he might try to distract you with something, usually surprise unit drops, for you to take care of in order to 'steal your time'.
If someone will explain to me how multiple building selection screws this up I would be truly thankful.
Why so many people can't understand some facts?
- even with multiple building selection there still will be macro and multitasking involved, it will be a mix of sc and wc3 (yes, you have this things in wc3, they're just different). The differences will be: different from sc: it will be simplier/faster and not so attention-demanding. different from wc3: it will be managing your resources on a far greater scale, massing units and buildings instead of creating few units from few buildings
- and actually when you talk about closing the skill gap I think that's exactly what Blizzard wants to do. They're releasing a completely new game (just imagine how wc3 is different from wc2) and if the very same people that are on the top now would be on the top again right from the start don't you think it would be boring? Sure all SC/WC3 players will have advantage over new people but why make it so drastic?
1. Imagine TvsZ with multiple building selection. Then tell me that 0m 9s is just as hard as manually clicking your 10+ raxes and producing marines and manually clicking all your command centers to make scvs. TvsZ would be much, much easier if you had multiple-building selection. To the point where I wonder if Z could ever win a starleague game that lasts longer than 5 minutes.
2. This is not what we mean when we are talking about closing the skill gap. We are talking about the skill gap between pro-gamers and amateurs in general, not the gap between the current pro-gamers and the current amateurs.
1) You can't really use Starcraft 1 unit balance when discussing Starcraft 2 Interface. The units will of course be designed so all race combinations will be balanced with unlimited selection, It's not like they would take Starcraft 1 and just update the interface and graphics and leave it at that :O
ive got an even better idea. make something called "auto-build" which is same as "auto-cast" in WC3 where the unit casts the spell whenever he can.
with "auto-build" on at your gateways, the gates will instantly build a new unit the millisecond it is done with the previous, so you never lose any "build-time" and never lose any money on qued units, giving you EVEN MORE time for micro and strategy and skills and all that jazzzzzzzz.
oh and btw the gates also know your ratio of units in your army so if all your zealots are dieing it will start to build zealots and then stalkers if they're dieing and so on. SOUNDS LIKE AN AWESOME IDEA BITCHES.
edit: wtf did everyone totally miss the sarcasm there? i get quoted twice and make me soudn as if im serious abt this multi-selecting dumbass retarded nexus destroyers style bullshit....
brood war at the pro level has basically come down to a test of multitasking and speed. if you look at the strategies that are being employed right now, it's not like there's going to be some new guy going to korea and revolutionizing the scene with his new strategy.
the new builds and styles are just a reaction to players getting faster and with better multitask. the bisu build, the trend to have earlier hive and defilers in zvt, these strategies are not "brilliant," in the sense that they are innovative, they are just great at maximizing the multitask potential of the players. once players see the strategy once they can copy it down to the second due to practice partners, vods, replays, but it all just comes down to who can do it faster and with better multitask.
if sc2 dumbs down the multitask too much, all the strategy will be the same once the initial innovation period is over, and the execution will also be the same because you will be able to do everything with perfect macro. i'm not saying lower the unit selection to 1 or that you have to manually mine minerals, but you also can't just allow for select+all buildings press M make 10 marines. yes i know that macro is more than that, but there has to be a balance.
On May 22 2007 06:17 pyrogenetix wrote: ive got an even better idea. make something called "auto-build" which is same as "auto-cast" in WC3 where the unit casts the spell whenever he can.
with "auto-build" on at your gateways, the gates will instantly build a new unit the millisecond it is done with the previous, so you never lose any "build-time" and never lose any money on qued units, giving you EVEN MORE time for micro and strategy and skills and all that jazzzzzzzz.
oh and btw the gates also know your ratio of units in your army so if all your zealots are dieing it will start to build zealots and then stalkers if they're dieing and so on. SOUNDS LIKE AN AWESOME IDEA BITCHES.
Although I like the concept of autobuild in other games like supreme commander I think it might be going a step too far in Starcraft 2. I just want the more annoying and repetitive tasks of macro removed.
On May 22 2007 06:19 Hot_Bid wrote: brood war at the pro level has basically come down to a test of multitasking and speed.
if you look at the strategies that are being employed right now, it's not like there's going to be some guy going to korea and revolutionizing the scene with his new strategy.
the new builds and styles are just a reaction to players getting faster and with better multitask.
the bisu build, the trend to have earlier hive and defilers in zvt, these strategies are not brilliant, they just are great at maximizing the multitask potential of the players. once players see the strategy once they can copy it down to the second due to practice partners, vods, replays, but it all just comes down to who can do it faster and with better multitask.
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?
On May 22 2007 06:17 pyrogenetix wrote: ive got an even better idea. make something called "auto-build" which is same as "auto-cast" in WC3 where the unit casts the spell whenever he can.
with "auto-build" on at your gateways, the gates will instantly build a new unit the millisecond it is done with the previous, so you never lose any "build-time" and never lose any money on qued units, giving you EVEN MORE time for micro and strategy and skills and all that jazzzzzzzz.
oh and btw the gates also know your ratio of units in your army so if all your zealots are dieing it will start to build zealots and then stalkers if they're dieing and so on. SOUNDS LIKE AN AWESOME IDEA BITCHES.
Yeah, we can also get "auto-fight" which micros for you and does the fighting for you. All you have to worry about is panning the camera.
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. but its not because of strategy or gamesense or timing or builds, because all of it can be trained. yes you have players who are better at those things, but the real reason for the "deep" skill difference in SC1 is speed and multitask.
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.
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 :=)
Even though I pushed hard for speed requirments in my other post on multi select i think you are overrestimating the speed differences of todays progamers. In the ~~top 300 range I was under the impression that pure click-through-gates and micro wise things were fairly even. I really really doubt the reason oov builds more units than anyone else is because he clicks through his factories faster... just for the reason you stated such a thing would be very easy to train.
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.
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.
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, or at least deep enough that you have different options in the same match up.
From WC3 a problem is that for some match ups like Orc Vs Human the human will almost always go Rifles+Casters and win 60% of the time. If the human wants to try a different strategy he either has to be Gosu or Lucky.
From the interviews it seems like Blizzard wants to make more varied build orders viable so you can't just focus on perfecting one.
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.
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.
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
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..
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.
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 07:08 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!
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,
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".
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.
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.
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 >.>"
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
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.
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 07:08 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).
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 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:
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.
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
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'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 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. -_-;;
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
On May 22 2007 11:38 gravity wrote: 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.
That MUST be it. Forget all the reasons about forcing players to decide between micro and macro, forget forcing players to multitask, and forget that mechanics play a huge role in the game regardless.
We're all just a whole bunch of dinosaurs, rawr, we fear change.
On May 22 2007 12:05 EmS.Radagast wrote: 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. -_-;;
You are retarded. No one cares about a new rally system, in fact, I agree that it just hampers gameplay, but I don't complain. Want to know why? Because I could very easily set new rally points but that would take away from my micro and macro and use precious midgame time. Like I said, add a new rally system, it IS redudant, but don't take out the macro system like you want to take out the rally system just so you can micro more.
I think its a really simple way to close the gap between skilled and less skilled players. Its a game that is supposed to be geared towards PROGAMING I think if multiple buildings can be selected, it would fit very well if the UNLIMITED unit selection
I think many want all the features that are in other more modern RTS games. All of which are completely unsuitable for Progaming
the more and more features such as, auto-casting, unlimited unit control,and multiple building selection. The less Starcraft Diffrentiates itself from the rest of the other games out there.
And anyways for any half decent player they can F3 your unit facilities and then F4 your rally point and go back and forth. and if your skilled youll learn tricks such as that to speed up your overall gameplay, widening the gap between casual and progamer is a good thing. None of us want to watch basketball with a bunch of midgets do we?
On May 22 2007 12:01 Zironic wrote: 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.
I'd like something a tad smarter too (though that'd need to be pretty damn original, I don't see anything too obvious), but between the "SC1 formula" (some repetitive tasks but perfect micro/macro balance) and the "WAR3 formula" (all repetitive tasks are automatized, player spends 90% of his time microing), I'd definitely favor the former for a SC sequel.
On May 22 2007 12:05 EmS.Radagast wrote: 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. -_-;;
Real Time Strategy. This is not just a strategy game like chess where you worry only about position, you also have to worry about the time element. BW matches are intense at all points of the game largely due to the fact that you cannot spend all your time doing micro or macro, but you need to wisely split your attention amongst the two.
As it is now being limited by my mouse speed is one of the great challenges in BW. If my opponent and I are strategically equal, but he is able to beat me for the sole fact that he is simply faster with his mouse and able to re-rally troops during a battle, I accept that as part of the fun of competition.
I mean, if only pros can do it, doesn't it make their actions more impressive? Should we lower basketball rims so amateurs who never work out or practice can dunk?
I know this is just a UI limitation and BW is 10 years old, but you can relate it to a "rule" that we're used to that increases the physical challenge and excitement in the game.
On May 21 2007 16:57 PTC-Hurricane wrote: Excalibur nailed it. All multiple building selection does it make it easier for lower level players to macro. This will bring more players to the game and help improve the community.
I don't care.
It'd take out a big chunk of the competition factor if they allowed multi-building selection. I like the fact that it takes a while to get good at something. Multi selecting? Anyone can learn that in less than a day as opposed to single-selection. If Blizzard is smart enough they will leave it more like the original. Besides there is already War3 for noobs who's into multi-building selection .
On May 22 2007 12:05 EmS.Radagast wrote: 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. -_-;;
Real Time Strategy. This is not just a strategy game like chess where you worry only about position, you also have to worry about the time element. BW matches are intense at all points of the game largely due to the fact that you cannot spend all your time doing micro or macro, but you need to wisely split your attention amongst the two.
As it is now being limited by my mouse speed is one of the great challenges in BW. If my opponent and I are strategically equal, but he is able to beat me for the sole fact that he is simply faster with his mouse and able to re-rally troops during a battle, I accept that as part of the fun of competition.
I mean, if only pros can do it, doesn't it make their actions more impressive? Should we lower basketball rims so amateurs who never work out or practice can dunk?
I know this is just a UI limitation and BW is 10 years old, but you can relate it to a "rule" that we're used to that increases the physical challenge and excitement in the game.
I really doubt that crippling the controls is the best way to make a game fast paced and require quick thinking...
Dexterity really should be a part of high level play in a game like this but it shouldn't be needed to do basic things like unit and building selection. I think Dexterity should make the difference in unit micro while strategical brilliance should make the difference in economy macro.
If we take the rules and sports analogy further. Doesn't casual players of football usually play with ALOT less restrictive rules then proffesionals? If we take this all the way Starcraft 2 should really support two different interfaces where one is a casual version used for custom play where the other is designed for hard to control ladder play.
On May 22 2007 12:05 EmS.Radagast wrote: 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. -_-;;
Real Time Strategy. This is not just a strategy game like chess where you worry only about position, you also have to worry about the time element. BW matches are intense at all points of the game largely due to the fact that you cannot spend all your time doing micro or macro, but you need to wisely split your attention amongst the two.
As it is now being limited by my mouse speed is one of the great challenges in BW. If my opponent and I are strategically equal, but he is able to beat me for the sole fact that he is simply faster with his mouse and able to re-rally troops during a battle, I accept that as part of the fun of competition.
I mean, if only pros can do it, doesn't it make their actions more impressive? Should we lower basketball rims so amateurs who never work out or practice can dunk?
I know this is just a UI limitation and BW is 10 years old, but you can relate it to a "rule" that we're used to that increases the physical challenge and excitement in the game.
I really doubt that crippling the controls is the best way to make a game fast paced and require quick thinking...
Dexterity really should be a part of high level play in a game like this but it shouldn't be needed to do basic things like unit and building selection. I think Dexterity should make the difference in unit micro while strategical brilliance should make the difference in economy macro.
you could argue with same for WC3 gameplay with that argument I dont think anyone here wants a WC3. If they should focus their thoughts on less things isnt that dumbing it down?
On May 22 2007 12:05 EmS.Radagast wrote: 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. -_-;;
Real Time Strategy. This is not just a strategy game like chess where you worry only about position, you also have to worry about the time element. BW matches are intense at all points of the game largely due to the fact that you cannot spend all your time doing micro or macro, but you need to wisely split your attention amongst the two.
As it is now being limited by my mouse speed is one of the great challenges in BW. If my opponent and I are strategically equal, but he is able to beat me for the sole fact that he is simply faster with his mouse and able to re-rally troops during a battle, I accept that as part of the fun of competition.
I mean, if only pros can do it, doesn't it make their actions more impressive? Should we lower basketball rims so amateurs who never work out or practice can dunk?
I know this is just a UI limitation and BW is 10 years old, but you can relate it to a "rule" that we're used to that increases the physical challenge and excitement in the game.
I really doubt that crippling the controls is the best way to make a game fast paced and require quick thinking...
Dexterity really should be a part of high level play in a game like this but it shouldn't be needed to do basic things like unit and building selection. I think Dexterity should make the difference in unit micro while strategical brilliance should make the difference in economy macro.
you could argue with same for WC3 gameplay with that argument I dont think anyone here wants a WC3. If they should focus their thoughts on less things isnt that dumbing it down?
I truly think that selecting buildings is something that shouldn't be skill oriented. Peoples thoughts should be spent doing better macro things like buildings expansions, defences, planning the economy, scouting the enemy, deciding on what counters to build etc.
On May 22 2007 12:05 EmS.Radagast wrote: 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. -_-;;
Real Time Strategy. This is not just a strategy game like chess where you worry only about position, you also have to worry about the time element. BW matches are intense at all points of the game largely due to the fact that you cannot spend all your time doing micro or macro, but you need to wisely split your attention amongst the two.
As it is now being limited by my mouse speed is one of the great challenges in BW. If my opponent and I are strategically equal, but he is able to beat me for the sole fact that he is simply faster with his mouse and able to re-rally troops during a battle, I accept that as part of the fun of competition.
I mean, if only pros can do it, doesn't it make their actions more impressive? Should we lower basketball rims so amateurs who never work out or practice can dunk?
I know this is just a UI limitation and BW is 10 years old, but you can relate it to a "rule" that we're used to that increases the physical challenge and excitement in the game.
I really doubt that crippling the controls is the best way to make a game fast paced and require quick thinking...
Dexterity really should be a part of high level play in a game like this but it shouldn't be needed to do basic things like unit and building selection. I think Dexterity should make the difference in unit micro while strategical brilliance should make the difference in economy macro.
If we take the rules and sports analogy further. Doesn't casual players of football usually play with ALOT less restrictive rules then proffesionals? If we take this all the way Starcraft 2 should really support two different interfaces where one is a casual version used for custom play where the other is designed for hard to control ladder play.
Can you at least see the point we're trying to make now? Re-rallying production buildings takes about the same amount of time, albeit a little longer, than it takes to macro. We want to make the rally system easier, because really, it doesn't add or take away from the game to be able to properly rally.
However, you are proposing we do the exact same thing to production buildings, which, very unlike rally points, is a huge, HUGE part of the game. Again, the main point is not that being able to build faster will win you the game, it might against an equal player, but it forces you to THINK. Can you macro now? How about now? Is it worth macroing these marines against those lings or will it be more beneficial to lose 3 rines but get 9 more in return?
On May 22 2007 12:05 EmS.Radagast wrote: 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. -_-;;
Real Time Strategy. This is not just a strategy game like chess where you worry only about position, you also have to worry about the time element. BW matches are intense at all points of the game largely due to the fact that you cannot spend all your time doing micro or macro, but you need to wisely split your attention amongst the two.
As it is now being limited by my mouse speed is one of the great challenges in BW. If my opponent and I are strategically equal, but he is able to beat me for the sole fact that he is simply faster with his mouse and able to re-rally troops during a battle, I accept that as part of the fun of competition.
I mean, if only pros can do it, doesn't it make their actions more impressive? Should we lower basketball rims so amateurs who never work out or practice can dunk?
I know this is just a UI limitation and BW is 10 years old, but you can relate it to a "rule" that we're used to that increases the physical challenge and excitement in the game.
I really doubt that crippling the controls is the best way to make a game fast paced and require quick thinking...
Dexterity really should be a part of high level play in a game like this but it shouldn't be needed to do basic things like unit and building selection. I think Dexterity should make the difference in unit micro while strategical brilliance should make the difference in economy macro.
you could argue with same for WC3 gameplay with that argument I dont think anyone here wants a WC3. If they should focus their thoughts on less things isnt that dumbing it down?
I truly think that selecting buildings is something that shouldn't be skill oriented. Peoples thoughts should be spent doing better macro things like buildings expansions, defences, planning the economy, scouting the enemy, deciding on what counters to build etc.
Its not stopping people now from doing it, i dont see how taking out what i found to be a crucial element in unit production and control, once i learnt to properly use hotkeys and F keys. I cant imagine a valid argument over taking away a part of the game that seperates the newbs from the gosu
On May 22 2007 12:05 EmS.Radagast wrote: 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. -_-;;
Real Time Strategy. This is not just a strategy game like chess where you worry only about position, you also have to worry about the time element. BW matches are intense at all points of the game largely due to the fact that you cannot spend all your time doing micro or macro, but you need to wisely split your attention amongst the two.
As it is now being limited by my mouse speed is one of the great challenges in BW. If my opponent and I are strategically equal, but he is able to beat me for the sole fact that he is simply faster with his mouse and able to re-rally troops during a battle, I accept that as part of the fun of competition.
I mean, if only pros can do it, doesn't it make their actions more impressive? Should we lower basketball rims so amateurs who never work out or practice can dunk?
I know this is just a UI limitation and BW is 10 years old, but you can relate it to a "rule" that we're used to that increases the physical challenge and excitement in the game.
I really doubt that crippling the controls is the best way to make a game fast paced and require quick thinking...
Dexterity really should be a part of high level play in a game like this but it shouldn't be needed to do basic things like unit and building selection. I think Dexterity should make the difference in unit micro while strategical brilliance should make the difference in economy macro.
If we take the rules and sports analogy further. Doesn't casual players of football usually play with ALOT less restrictive rules then proffesionals? If we take this all the way Starcraft 2 should really support two different interfaces where one is a casual version used for custom play where the other is designed for hard to control ladder play.
I agree with you, like PoP, that another way of requiring dexterity would be ideal. Someone in another thread a while back suggested you be able to go into FPS mode with your units as ultimate micro to increase their efficiency but that idea is way out there.
I'm just afraid that if they implement these UI enhancements games will not be as intense, though I don't know that for sure. A casual interface for custom play would be an interesting idea if it is found that an unrestricted UI takes away from the games' intensity.
On May 22 2007 12:05 EmS.Radagast wrote: 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. -_-;;
Real Time Strategy. This is not just a strategy game like chess where you worry only about position, you also have to worry about the time element. BW matches are intense at all points of the game largely due to the fact that you cannot spend all your time doing micro or macro, but you need to wisely split your attention amongst the two.
As it is now being limited by my mouse speed is one of the great challenges in BW. If my opponent and I are strategically equal, but he is able to beat me for the sole fact that he is simply faster with his mouse and able to re-rally troops during a battle, I accept that as part of the fun of competition.
I mean, if only pros can do it, doesn't it make their actions more impressive? Should we lower basketball rims so amateurs who never work out or practice can dunk?
I know this is just a UI limitation and BW is 10 years old, but you can relate it to a "rule" that we're used to that increases the physical challenge and excitement in the game.
I really doubt that crippling the controls is the best way to make a game fast paced and require quick thinking...
Dexterity really should be a part of high level play in a game like this but it shouldn't be needed to do basic things like unit and building selection. I think Dexterity should make the difference in unit micro while strategical brilliance should make the difference in economy macro.
If we take the rules and sports analogy further. Doesn't casual players of football usually play with ALOT less restrictive rules then proffesionals? If we take this all the way Starcraft 2 should really support two different interfaces where one is a casual version used for custom play where the other is designed for hard to control ladder play.
Can you at least see the point we're trying to make now? Re-rallying production buildings takes about the same amount of time, albeit a little longer, than it takes to macro. We want to make the rally system easier, because really, it doesn't add or take away from the game to be able to properly rally.
However, you are proposing we do the exact same thing to production buildings, which, very unlike rally points, is a huge, HUGE part of the game. Again, the main point is not that being able to build faster will win you the game, it might against an equal player, but it forces you to THINK. Can you macro now? How about now? Is it worth macroing these marines against those lings or will it be more beneficial to lose 3 rines but get 9 more in return?
Our differences is I suppose that I don't think unit production should take alot of time will you think it should take alot of time. I don't think we can reach an agreement here.
On May 22 2007 12:05 EmS.Radagast wrote: 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. -_-;;
Real Time Strategy. This is not just a strategy game like chess where you worry only about position, you also have to worry about the time element. BW matches are intense at all points of the game largely due to the fact that you cannot spend all your time doing micro or macro, but you need to wisely split your attention amongst the two.
As it is now being limited by my mouse speed is one of the great challenges in BW. If my opponent and I are strategically equal, but he is able to beat me for the sole fact that he is simply faster with his mouse and able to re-rally troops during a battle, I accept that as part of the fun of competition.
I mean, if only pros can do it, doesn't it make their actions more impressive? Should we lower basketball rims so amateurs who never work out or practice can dunk?
I know this is just a UI limitation and BW is 10 years old, but you can relate it to a "rule" that we're used to that increases the physical challenge and excitement in the game.
I really doubt that crippling the controls is the best way to make a game fast paced and require quick thinking...
Dexterity really should be a part of high level play in a game like this but it shouldn't be needed to do basic things like unit and building selection. I think Dexterity should make the difference in unit micro while strategical brilliance should make the difference in economy macro.
If we take the rules and sports analogy further. Doesn't casual players of football usually play with ALOT less restrictive rules then proffesionals? If we take this all the way Starcraft 2 should really support two different interfaces where one is a casual version used for custom play where the other is designed for hard to control ladder play.
Can you at least see the point we're trying to make now? Re-rallying production buildings takes about the same amount of time, albeit a little longer, than it takes to macro. We want to make the rally system easier, because really, it doesn't add or take away from the game to be able to properly rally.
However, you are proposing we do the exact same thing to production buildings, which, very unlike rally points, is a huge, HUGE part of the game. Again, the main point is not that being able to build faster will win you the game, it might against an equal player, but it forces you to THINK. Can you macro now? How about now? Is it worth macroing these marines against those lings or will it be more beneficial to lose 3 rines but get 9 more in return?
Our differences is I suppose that I don't think unit production should take alot of time will you think it should take alot of time. I don't think we can reach an agreement here.
And I don't believe micro should take all the time.
As I posted in the other thread on multi selection there "is" a smarter way. Age of Titans had a system where all production bassically was automized, and you still had to be pretty damn pro to have time to micro efficiently.
The solution was to force the players to constantly rethink and rebalance their worker force between 4 types of resources as well as requiring a HUGE number of buildings to be built constantly etc etc.
Only this game was largly very unpopular, which is what i fear will happen to bw as well if we go down that road.
On May 22 2007 13:12 KlaCkoN wrote: As I posted in the other thread on multi selection there "is" a smarter way. Age of Titans had a system where all production bassically was automized, and you still had to be pretty damn pro to have time to micro efficiently.
The solution was to force the players to constantly rethink and rebalance their worker force between 4 types of resources as well as requiring a HUGE number of buildings to be built constantly etc etc.
Only this game was largly very unpopular, which is what i fear will happen to bw as well if we go down that road.
On May 22 2007 13:12 KlaCkoN wrote: As I posted in the other thread on multi selection there "is" a smarter way. Age of Titans had a system where all production bassically was automized, and you still had to be pretty damn pro to have time to micro efficiently.
The solution was to force the players to constantly rethink and rebalance their worker force between 4 types of resources as well as requiring a HUGE number of buildings to be built constantly etc etc.
Only this game was largly very unpopular, which is what i fear will happen to bw as well if we go down that road.
I've never heard of this age of titans game and google agrees with me. Are you by chance talking about Age of Mythology?
On May 22 2007 13:32 KlaCkoN wrote: Titans is the expansion -___- like brood war to sc
You don't say Star Brood do you xD?
I'm not sure why Age of Mythology failed, I thought it was a fairly fun game.
Age of XXX is almost a pure macro game series though without much micro at all. Starcraft is about a healthy balance. I don't think we need any way near the automation you can have in some games. The only automations I think the game needs are simple ones like:
Rallying at resources Idle SCV's repairing nearby buildings
etc, basic things. Everything truly basic should be very simple to control so people can spend more time doing proper micro and economy management (I won't use the word macro anymore since everyone seems to have different views on what macro is).
OMG how many times do we have to mention that StarCraft is a Real-Time Strategy game, and that elements such as macro should be a part of it. If you don't like that then stop ruining our game and play something more noob-friendly.
On May 22 2007 13:44 DeA wrote: OMG how many times do we have to mention that StarCraft is a Real-Time Strategy game, and that elements such as macro should be a part of it. If you don't like that then stop ruining our game and play something more noob-friendly.
Explain to me how having to select buildings individually make the game more strategic or more real time.
Selecting buildings individually have NOTHING to do with the genre of RTS. For reference look at the last 5 RTS games released and you'll notice that all of them allow for unlimited selections.
On May 22 2007 13:51 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: I think you should go read the protoss building thread to see how this problem could be solved from a different take.
this doesn't really solve the problem since if you don't upgrade to warpgates, you can still have the multiple gateways selected and build with one button.
plus with phase prisms you can set up a psionic matrix near your army and just call up reinforcements from warp gates without going back to your base.
You can't make a game MORE REAL-TIME than it is, it's either Real-Time or it isn't.
I'm not saying that selecting buildings individually is RTS, I'm saying that MACRO is a basic part of the RTS games, which also includes selecting buildings in order to macro properly.
The ability to select buildings individually is just a small part of the macro required in StarCraft. Playing RTS means that you will have complete control over your base and army so that you can do whatever you want. This isn't turn based where the player has no control over his macro and/or his micro, playing a game in real-time is all about those two key things.
BTW, there is a casual mode for casual fans in BW, it's called BGH. Casual players don't give a fuck about UI, because they will play games with other people at their level. A high-level UI will only be used by people who want play competitively anyway, so why dumb it down for people who don't care about using the UI to it's fullest extent? All you're doing by doing that is turning off players who want to play at a challenging and balanced competitive level.
Everyone that plays starcraft likes it because its not the same football or basketball, its a sport where you can use your brain and not your physical talent. I think cordination and mastering repetitive macro tasks shouldn't overshadow tactics and strategy (out thinking your opponent). I'm glad that blizzard will have a better early game tech tree so we won't see the same two builds for every race game after game. I wouldn't knock sc2 before you try it for those that don't like the idea, everyone thats posted on this forum is going to buy sc2 regardless anyway.
This is what I think sets starcraft apart from wc3, and why war3 never lived up to starcraft:
In starcraft, there are relatively few built-in unit abilities and gaming "features" (i.e. gold upkeep, creeps). You get a caster or two for every race, and you have terrain that's inaccessible to certain units, but that's about it. This forced high-level players to seek an advantage by "abusing" the naunces of the game, i.e., macro/micro timing, unit speed, attack animation, details in the terrain like the size of a hill and its proximity to strategic points, and so on.
War3, on the other hand, not only has more unit abilities and gaming features, but these features are also infinitely more powerful and accessible than ones in starcraft. Example of powerful unit abilities: this is an obvious one, hero abilities are anywhere from 50% to 90% of your game in war3, depeneding on the stage of the game and the matchup. Example of more accessible features: tab-casting, ability to rally to heros, but I'm sure you can come up with more. The good thing about this is that it adds not only visual "pizaz" to the game, but also gives the game the illusion of having a deeper level of gameplay to newcomers. Both of these things help sell games in the short-run and makes for a kick-ass single player campaign. War3, however, was destined to fail as a pro-gaming venue.
Why? Lots of reasons, but I think the most fundamental problem is in the player-game dynamics. To put it plainly, starcraft is a seemingly simple game with enough versatility to allow players to exert their skill and even their personality (yay boxer, boo savior). The outcome of a match is determined by the player. Warcraft, on the other hand, is a game where the will of the game dominates over the will of the player, and the outcome of the match depends largely on the willingless of the player to submit to the will of the game. So, the entertainment value from starcraft derives from the individual wills and personalities of the community that drives it --- an endless pool of creativity and competitive energy, while the entertainment value from warcraft draws largely from the creativity and energy of only a select few (albeit VERY talented) game-makers from blizzard. Blizzard's role then, shifts from "basic-service-provider-and-PR-machine" in starcraft to "god" in war3, and it's not easy to be the big fella.
Why did I post this in a starcraft 2 forum? My gut instinct from the gameplay vids so far tells me that these designers are exerting a little too much of their will on a game that's grown into a monster. Something much, much bigger than blizzard. Should you try to tame a 50-foot monster with a cupcake? Or should you nourish it and hope that, instead of slaughtering your whole village, it poops more golden eggs for you? The game developers at blizzard are not the only people responsible for what starcraft has become. Starcraft's success is due to a combination of a good basic product (props to the developers), good company reputation (props to the founders), impeccable timing (props to their PR department), and a lot luck (props to the boom in the computer industry, broadband internet, and most importantly, crazy south koreans). We can only hope that blizzard don't get too far ahead of themselves, or they might be faced with a decision to pull the plug on something much dearer to them than "warcraft adventures" or "Starcraft: Ghost".
Multicommands hacks exist in SC and most people here can probably smoke the people that use them because they know the game better than the hackers. I don't think that removing the selection cap is going to change the game as fundamentally as you all do.
On May 22 2007 13:44 DeA wrote: OMG how many times do we have to mention that StarCraft is a Real-Time Strategy game, and that elements such as macro should be a part of it. If you don't like that then stop ruining our game and play something more noob-friendly.
Explain to me how having to select buildings individually make the game more strategic or more real time.
Selecting buildings individually have NOTHING to do with the genre of RTS. For reference look at the last 5 RTS games released and you'll notice that all of them allow for unlimited selections.
In my opinion war3 would never have replaced SC, it also IMO didn't really fail... It's still very popular world-wide and more popular in China than SC. The reason it didn't do 'that well' in korea is because no progamers at the top are willing to switch over to War3... why would they? War3 is a fun game to play but even I hate to observe at 1x speed... I can see why it wasn't popular enough to watch in a live studio.
Yeah, I agree with you. I don't think war3 was a failiure by any means. It's still more popular than just about every other RTS out there not called "starcraft". I was just trying to explain why I thought war3 was not as successful in the long run as starcraft in general terms instead of referring to specifics such as gamespeed. I do agree that war3 is a little slow, but I think that's more based on personal preference and perspective (pro war3 players with 300+ apm might not think the game is so slow).
I support the multi-building selection. So you can focus on doing something else. Never underestimate Blizzard. They will definately imply a lot of things into SC2 to keep you busy Macro & Micro.
On May 22 2007 12:20 FrozenArbiter wrote: 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
Ermm, I probably just haven't made myself precise. Many people re-rally their production facilities once or twice (or even, say 5 times) per game. What I was talking about is constantly setting rally points to the vital places. What we see is that someone sets a giant rally point for all his gates, then takes the units from there and sends into battle. Rallying that massively (10+ buildings) takes time because it involves very much mouse movement and a very steady hand to click on the minimap correctly. There's another way to rally (F2 for gates, F3 for rally point, F2-click-F3-click etc), but that requires you to overwrite your F-keys whenever you want to set a new rally point and they are quite precious.
I played Armies of Exigo demo and was fascinated by the fact how much of a Warcraft III clone it was. Well, it was also clone of several other games, like the Abomination from Warcraft III. Didn't bother buying.
lol all this talk makes me rethink what someone proposed a few months back... was it hot-bid? anyway it was that they make TWO versions of starcraft 2.
1) Starcraft 2 CHOBO 2) Starcraft 2 GOSU
in the first version you have everything like auto-cast spells, multiple building selection, rallied workers automine, upkeep etc.
then in the second version you keep everything badass.
problem solved! kinda like diablo where there was a hardcore option where you'd really die after you got killed and start over, it was for the really hardcore players. everybody wins!
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?
From page 1...
By noob friendly, i mean that makes the difference between a beginner and a skilled player smaller. The skill level won't be as varied and this goes along with things like auto-spell casting and mass unit selection.
I don't think this will make the game less popular, but honestly i wouldn't care if it does. So what if the game is the best selling ever when most of the people who buy it won't play competitively. And its not like they can't still enjoy the game.
On May 22 2007 23:16 pyrogenetix wrote: lol all this talk makes me rethink what someone proposed a few months back... was it hot-bid? anyway it was that they make TWO versions of starcraft 2.
1) Starcraft 2 CHOBO 2) Starcraft 2 GOSU
in the first version you have everything like auto-cast spells, multiple building selection, rallied workers automine, upkeep etc.
then in the second version you keep everything badass.
problem solved! kinda like diablo where there was a hardcore option where you'd really die after you got killed and start over, it was for the really hardcore players. everybody wins!
On May 22 2007 23:16 pyrogenetix wrote: lol all this talk makes me rethink what someone proposed a few months back... was it hot-bid? anyway it was that they make TWO versions of starcraft 2.
1) Starcraft 2 CHOBO 2) Starcraft 2 GOSU
in the first version you have everything like auto-cast spells, multiple building selection, rallied workers automine, upkeep etc.
then in the second version you keep everything badass.
problem solved! kinda like diablo where there was a hardcore option where you'd really die after you got killed and start over, it was for the really hardcore players. everybody wins!
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?
From page 1...
By noob friendly, i mean that makes the difference between a beginner and a skilled player smaller. The skill level won't be as varied and this goes along with things like auto-spell casting and mass unit selection.
I don't think this will make the game less popular, but honestly i wouldn't care if it does. So what if the game is the best selling ever when most of the people who buy it won't play competitively. And its not like they can't still enjoy the game.
Blizzard have already stated they want to raise the difference between pros and newbies. However I don't think building selection is the right place to do so.
From Blizzards gameplay discussion it seems they want to put the skill level differences in how you exploit the terrain to your advantage and other nuisances. Also every single unit shown so far in the Gameplay video needs heavy micromanagement to make sure it is fireing at the correct kind of target. Siege tanks attacking immortals for example is just pure waste.
Also the protoss won't even be able to queue up units at all anymore.
The thing people need to realize about auto-cast is that the types of spells in SC aren't 'meant' to be auto-cast...
Aren't designed for it
In War3, autocast things like slow, bloodlust, etc., you want them to be on all your opponents, so there's no need to manually target. In SC, I wouldn't want to waste precious mana on say lockdown hitting a goliath instead of a BC or something.
Basically, all of war3's auto-cast spells were designed to be spammable, SC's clearly aren't, except heal... emp, d-matrix, parasite, broodlings, ensare... etc... no one, even a "war3 noob" would want those spells autocast
Also why the fuck would anyone want upkeep in any game? War3 players don't 'like' it at all. It's designed to allow people who are getting owned to bounce back a bit easier. Like people have said units in war3 are very expensive and if you can kill a shit load of the other persons they are usually fucked... with upkeep this is lessened a bit. Still, it doesn't belong in sc2
On May 22 2007 23:24 SoleSteeler wrote: The thing people need to realize about auto-cast is that the types of spells in SC aren't 'meant' to be auto-cast...
Aren't designed for it
In War3, autocast things like slow, bloodlust, etc., you want them to be on all your opponents, so there's no need to manually target. In SC, I wouldn't want to waste precious mana on say lockdown hitting a goliath instead of a BC or something.
Basically, all of war3's auto-cast spells were designed to be spammable, SC's clearly aren't, except heal... emp, d-matrix, parasite, broodlings, ensare... etc... no one, even a "war3 noob" would want those spells autocast
Also why the fuck would anyone want upkeep in any game? War3 players don't 'like' it at all. It's designed to allow people who are getting owned to bounce back a bit easier. Like people have said units in war3 are very expensive and if you can kill a shit load of the other persons they are usually fucked... with upkeep this is lessened a bit. Still, it doesn't belong in sc2
I think we might be confusing them by not rabidly defending everything WC3 like they defend everything SC1 ^^.
WC3 is ruined because its basically like an old school micro war in sc where both players don't want to lose so they just run around the area and eventually one of the players gets bored and loses. At high level warcraft 3 your primary agenda is just to harass the enemies army never to fully engage. I don't think the multiple building selection took anything out of it, it does make macro harder in a sense because if you mis-rally 8 gateways and then go into a battle and your 8 freshbies are slaughtered or just not in the right area of the map your going to lose, so you will constantly have to be changing your rally and that would be more of the macro then just spending half your energy running around your base clicking each building. Lets face it warcraft 3 was not as good as starcraft because of many reasons, the 'macro' didn't have anything to do with it, I for one found the idea of heroes and creeps kind of stupid for an rts. When it was first announced I thought like every unit would level up and then it was just heroes and it was kind of lame.
On May 22 2007 23:24 SoleSteeler wrote: The thing people need to realize about auto-cast is that the types of spells in SC aren't 'meant' to be auto-cast...
Aren't designed for it
In War3, autocast things like slow, bloodlust, etc., you want them to be on all your opponents, so there's no need to manually target. In SC, I wouldn't want to waste precious mana on say lockdown hitting a goliath instead of a BC or something.
Basically, all of war3's auto-cast spells were designed to be spammable, SC's clearly aren't, except heal... emp, d-matrix, parasite, broodlings, ensare... etc... no one, even a "war3 noob" would want those spells autocast
Also why the fuck would anyone want upkeep in any game? War3 players don't 'like' it at all. It's designed to allow people who are getting owned to bounce back a bit easier. Like people have said units in war3 are very expensive and if you can kill a shit load of the other persons they are usually fucked... with upkeep this is lessened a bit. Still, it doesn't belong in sc2
I think you meant "would NOT want"
I say listen to SoleSteeler for he speaks the truth!
Fuu 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.
i can agree with some ideas here and there
Coming from TL.net forums and being here for several years, some even being staff members.
You can agree with good or bad ideas here and there?
Restoration is a good example of a spell in bw you'd like (theoretically can) cast on lots of different targets in no time flat. Same way that I can stim 36 marines in less than a second, I'd like to heal my 8 vessels from plague in less than a second. The only reason I can't do that is because the UI is crippled, lol!
Oh oh I forgot -- it's all part of the game's balance, ROFLOLZOR
Wait wait, that's not the real reason!! The reason is that I have to train 14 hours a day to DESERVE to be able to do that.
[/sarcasm]
Actually my last sentence was wrong. Even the pros don't do it. They don't do it because it's too hard for them. Because it's not humanly possible to do that with BW's current interface.
I support the option to choose from different UI's (i.e. different levels of automation) . Competitive games would enforce use of the same UI for all participating players. All of you 400APM machines could even play sc2 with war1 level interface, just for extra pimpin' and to push your mashing abilities to the 500-600APM area.
On May 23 2007 11:26 EmS.Radagast wrote: Restoration is a good example of a spell in bw you'd like (theoretically can) cast on lots of different targets in no time flat. Same way that I can stim 36 marines in less than a second, I'd like to heal my 8 vessels from plague in less than a second. The only reason I can't do that is because the UI is crippled, lol!
Oh oh I forgot -- it's all part of the game's balance, ROFLOLZOR
If you don't see why autocast would suck in this situation from several perspectives, you should just stick to WC3
If you don't see why autocast would suck in this situation from several perspectives, you should just stick to WC3
If the UI is worth anything you will be able to TOGGLE autocasting. All you will need to do is move the vessel group into range and toggle the autocast on, then back off. You could also implement a combination of smart-cast and multiple target selection to achieve the same effect.
I don't play WC3 at all, I tried doing that for a couple of months and moved back to bw because I don't like heros, I really don't like "creeping" and I outright despise upkeep, which is in my opinion the worst feature for an RTS ever concieved. I enjoy bw alot more, despite its flaws. The fact that it's the RTS game I enjoy most doesn't automatically mean I also think it's the embodiment of perfection like you do.
On May 23 2007 12:10 EmS.Radagast wrote: You newbie, if the UI is worth anything you will be able to TOGGLE autocasting. All you will need to do is move the vessel group into range and toggle the autocast on, then back off. You could also implement a combination of smart-cast and multiple target selection to achieve the same effect.
LoL, I'm not sure whether laugh or cry after being called a newbie by someone who's calling me a newbie because he cant do something as simple as manually restore a few vessels...
Yes, it's that simple that not even the pros do it in a real game. Way of totally not getting what I was trying to explain to you in very simple terms. Don't even try to argue about it because it's a fact. Please show me a pro level TvZ where the T does this to avoid getting his vessel cloud health down to 2 from a plague by Z.
Don't even try arguing it makes no difference if their health goes to 2. The pros apparently can't even manage to repair their vessels, they just die in mass to a bunch of hyds that happen to stand or move in their way 5 minutes later. You know this as well as I do so please cut the bullshit
On May 21 2007 20:31 DenariusJay wrote: You can still overpower someone in mouse speed with multi selection though. I can't figure out why some don't see this point. The newb will select 200 units and A click. The pro will do the same, but will 300APM his ass when the battle actually happens. 300 apm devoted to the actual battle will be far more entertaining then seeing it split between battle and building, IMO. Plus, with multi selection we will see bigger battles more common thus forcing the player to have to micro each big battle in order to come out the victor.
Multi selection will not hinder craft2 in any way shape or form... it only Hinders SC1 cuz its wasn't designed for it. SC2 will be.
huh? multi selection would be allot better in SC1 because on the speed of the gameplay.
I said in another thread, i think the unlimited select cap thread, i think there should be an options screen when you host the game allowing you to turn certain things on and off, like the Number of units to cap selections to, or Buildings Etc. and god forbid blizzard putting minimap Pings in sc2 have that an option as well. It will basically get put into a norm as to whats acceptable in pro matches like you dont see Pro matches being played on maps like BGH. The pros will work out a system putting together the best most practical way to do things and allowing the noobies to beat their shit with 8 gates at once and all of their units. Anybody agree or disagree with this idea? i think its relatively good.
On May 23 2007 11:26 EmS.Radagast wrote: Restoration is a good example of a spell in bw you'd like (theoretically can) cast on lots of different targets in no time flat. Same way that I can stim 36 marines in less than a second, I'd like to heal my 8 vessels from plague in less than a second. The only reason I can't do that is because the UI is crippled, lol!
Oh oh I forgot -- it's all part of the game's balance, ROFLOLZOR
Wait wait, that's not the real reason!! The reason is that I have to train 14 hours a day to DESERVE to be able to do that.
[/sarcasm]
Actually my last sentence was wrong. Even the pros don't do it. They don't do it because it's too hard for them. Because it's not humanly possible to do that with BW's current interface.
No, I don't want my medics to waste all their mana de-plaguing my marines while my BCs life is quickly draining away.
I feel it's likely there'll be a smartcast in SC2 (ie all units dont use the spell when several of them are selected) so I dont see the need for autocast on an ability like this.
In all honesty, I seriously hope that by the time the beta rolls around multiple building selection will be gone. I like pretty much everything about this that Blizzard has shown us so far, but without some astounding revamps MBS is just a bad idea.
Most people in this thread have been saying it's just mechanical and that removing it will simply add more room for strategy, but I really doubt that. It's important to realize that macroing through all of your buildings is not merely a clicksink or timesink, but a concentration sink. What's more, it's the best concentration sink I think I've ever seen in a game. And frankly, its presence is helping to contribute to Starcraft's strategy, not detracting from it.
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.
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.
Several people have said that MBS would free up more time to create new strategies and tricks on the battlefield, but do you really expect that? In the early game, where micro counts for a lot, macro is so much less time consuming that players can get away with doing impressive micro strategies. I sincerely doubt early game play would change much. When you approach late game, micro strategies tend to be less valuable than your overall unit placement, map control, army movement, etc etc. It's the big things that count and fortunately, even with the more time-consuming macro these things can still be accomplished very well. I honestly think that PvT, for example, would be downright boring late game if macro was simplified by the addition of MBS.
Furthermore, what's so wrong with having physical demands to a game? Basketball, baseball, soccer, football, etc etc all demand an incredible amount of physical ability to be played at the high level. Being able to dribble a basketball is a very mechanical thing. Pros will do it infinitely better than low level players, but does that really bother the low level players? Hell no. Those sports can be fun without the immense levels of physical ability, just like Starcraft can be enjoyable without incredible dexterity. You can't deny that those newbies playing 3V3 BGH are probably having a damn good time, because they keep doing it, even without all the physical, mechanical abilities that more experienced players have.
I honestly don't think that freeing up this extra time is going to create more strategies than it hurts, and I also don't think casual players would appreciate such an ability so much in the first place. Despite the UI being archaic, the last LAN party I attended had tons of SC matches going on between casual players despite all the new RTSes they could bust out. Casual players are looking to have a fun time, and they can get it without MBS.
I think difficulty in the game should lie in strategy, not clicking fast. I like being able to control as many units as I want at once and selecting multiple buildings. Anything else seems archaic to me, an old gameplay mechanic. Making control harder simply for the sake of making control harder as a purpose in itself is something I don't agree with.
On May 23 2007 21:31 Vi)Chris wrote: I think difficulty in the game should lie in strategy, not clicking fast. I like being able to control as many units as I want at once and selecting multiple buildings. Anything else seems archaic to me, an old gameplay mechanic. Making control harder simply for the sake of making control harder as a purpose in itself is something I don't agree with.
OMG once again we have a champion here.
The guy above wrote a very nice 100 lines post explaining to people like you why we desire it stays so and why its not "making control harder simply for the sake of making control harder as a purpose in itself" and JUST AFTER, you come here, not trying to explain why you disagree his arguments but saying exactly the same bullshit he tried to clear up to help you.
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.
From what we've seen in the gameplay video is seems Warp Gates at least have no building queue at all. You can place your Protoss units instantly when the Warp Gate has recharged it's warping capability. (Check this link for the many theories)
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.
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.
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Making the game a bit less about extremly time sensitive micro and a bit more about larger scale movement could help a bit.
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...
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
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 =[
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. ^^
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.
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 -_-
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...
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.
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.
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.
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 -_-
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!
No, no, no! The analogy to musical instruments is flawed at a basic level because the whole essence of playing an instrument is to map your mechanical skill on the instrument into the execution of a composition that SOMEBODY ELSE WROTE FOR YOU.
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.
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.
On May 24 2007 14:03 EmS.Radagast wrote: 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?
Not everyone playing SC can macro properly (aka they can't add in their head) so why should we give them a calculator if they don't know how to add in the first place? Even then, it's still based on how fast they can use the calculator (aka mash their one hotkey).
Korean pros have both the ability to add in their heads and deeply understand mathematics, why should others be given a handicap?
Yes, I see the connection.
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.
This is possible because chess is rigid and turn based.
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.
Whether you want to admit it or not, mechanics play HUGE role and will continue to until we can play with our minds. What you want to do is focus mechanics almost solely on micro instead of macro.
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.
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.
I think they'll try to make SC2 so it's balanced at 3 sec command lag and balanced with 20ms. As I've understood it (I don't follow pro play myself) the balance between races currently in SC1 is vastly different based on if you can pull off certain micros that require low ping counts.
So basicly all the races will need both micro and macro reliant strategies so they're not screwed over if they're in an envirement that favors one or the other.
On May 24 2007 15:11 Klogon wrote: Basically the argument for it being all about strategy falls apart the instant you're allowed to control your own units.
"Real war generals cannot directly control their troops but merely give orders and overall plans!"
Strategy while used in wars doesn't have anything to do with not controling your units, Strategy is a concept. Here, let me give you the definition from wikipedia:
There have been many attempts to define strategy, and there are many schools of strategy development.
The classic definition of strategy comes from the book by Alfred D. Chandler, Jr(1962)'Strategy & Structure':
"the determination of the basic long-term goals and objective of an enterpreise and the adoption of course of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out those goals."
By way of contrast, Quinn (1980)offers the following:
"the pattern or plan that integrates an organization's major goals, policies, and action sequences into a cohesive whole. A well formulated strategy helps to marshal and allocate an organization's resources into a unique and viable posture based on its relative internal competences and shortcomings, anticipated changes in the environment and contingent moves by intelligent opponents"
To which we may add the Mintzberg view of strategy as emergent strategy:
"a set of actions, or behavior, consistent over time, "a realized pattern [that] was not expressly intended" in the original planning of strategy. When a deliberate strategy is realized, the result matches the intended course of action. An emergent strategy develops when an organization takes a series of actions that with time turn into a consistent pattern of behavior, regardless of specific intentions. "Deliberate strategies provide the organization with a sense of purposeful direction." Emergent strategy implies that an organization is learning what works in practice. Mixing the deliberate and the emergent strategies in some way will help the organization to control its course while encouraging the learning process. "Organizations ...[may] pursue ... umbrella strategies: the broad outlines are deliberate while the details are allowed to emerge within them" (Mintzberg, 1994, p. 23-25; Hax & Majluf, 1996, p. 17).
These three give us an idea of differing approaches to strategy. Alfred Chandler Jr., and then Michael Porter emphasised the planned, rational decision to position the organisation in relation to its competitors. Quinn and others who followed, notably Andrew Pettigrew focused on the process that surrounds distinct strategic decisions, while Henry Mintzberg choses to highlight the distinction between planned strategy, what is intended, realised strategy, what happens, and emergent strategy, what happens that has not been planned.
Strategy is a very abstract concept, I didn't mean strategy in the military sense.
A game's rules define its strategies, and part of the rules for an RTS games is that you have to interact with the game through the UI in real time, which means it becomes part of game itself, in the same way units and buildings on the map are part of the game.
The UI being more or less automated give rise to completely different strategies. For example, drops (tank/lurker/reaver/ht in particular) would be madly overpowered if the game had Dune2's interface: you couldn't move your workers away from the minerals on time and almost all of them would get owned. So maybe the metagame of BW with Dune2 interface would become "first player to rush to reaver drop and micro it wins game" until Boxer would manage to actually make five of his unit shoot down the reaver on time with amazing micro and make it a little more interesting.
I will tell you the truth, I don't know what the meta-game of sc2 will look like with a bw-compatible interface, anymore than I know how it will be with a more automated UI. I'm just saying that there are no grounds to the assumption UI automation damages the depth and complexity of the meta-game. It *might* be that way for bw specifically (we don't even know that for sure), but all bets are off in a new game such as sc2. The design of sc2 can be made so that there is even more competition and interesting meta-game with an automated UI rather than a BW-compatible UI. To see why this is possible, consider my previous example: BW with BW interface is much more interesting strategically than BW with Dune2 interface.
If you think that what I just described is simply an impossible design task, in other words that ANY RTS design they will come up with will necessarily cause the meta-game to be trivialized by UI automation, I would like to to hear why. If you say the design I just described doesn't belong with the Starcraft franchise, well, this is a matter of personal opinion.
I believe that once sc2 will be solved strategically , the competition will start shifting over to mechanical ability increasingly over time, in similar vein to bw...This is inevitable, regardless of the specific details of what the mechanical ability is being used for. Given all other things are equal, better mechanical skills -> better win %. I think the argument has shifted into how much effect it should have exactly on the win %. In BW, even a small gap in mechanical skill changes the win % considerably.
I think I finally understood the argument.. a game less dependent on mechanical ability where all players follow "optimal" strategies might even out the win % between two given players, so they will have to play more games to fairly determine the winner (we will have bo5 or bo7 instead bo3). If you think about it, that's what happened with tennis: each game goes on for hours, because o/w a lower skill player could win too easily with a streak again a much better player. Tennis is quite a popular sport so I'm not sure that's such a bad thing... and the results of individual games will be less predictable, but anyway I see the case against my argument more clearly now.
Korean pros have both the ability to add in their heads and deeply understand mathematics, why should others be given a handicap?
That was exactly the point I was trying to make: What the Korean pros do by the math analogy, ISN'T deep understanding of mathematics. If you tell a math professor to add two 10 digit numbers, he/she will hand you over a pocket calculator. Doing arithmetic in your head requires tons of skill or a very rare talent for it, but the need for this skill is sort of "made up". It has nothing to do with actual understanding of mathematics, just as 1a2a3a4a5a6a in less than a second has nothing to do with strategic thinking in bw.
On May 24 2007 14:03 EmS.Radagast wrote: No, no, no! The analogy to musical instruments is flawed at a basic level because the whole essence of playing an instrument is to map your mechanical skill on the instrument into the execution of a composition that SOMEBODY ELSE WROTE FOR YOU.
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.
Let me put some gloves on... this could get very ugly.
I believe you are dead wrong about saying Starcraft is not like a musical instrument because IT IS. The start of the game is very much like playing a song assuming you are actually using the hotkeys which most of you god damn newbies who are reading this forum don't. Look here's my song it's called PvT on Longinus 1 gate goon range into expo followed by 3 gate and robo :
How do you like the tune of that? There's more but I'm too pissed off to play it for you. There are a few parts i don't need to write out; the solos i play when I'm microing my dragoons and my scouting with my probe. What i typed was from my memory. I have tons of songs in my head I've composed and memorized so that my beautiful music can rape newbies who are frantically clicking on gateways and bitching about starcraft turning into a macrofest. But what if a strange interruption comes into my music? What if my opponent plays the song called TvP Longinus 2 hidden rax in the middle of the map cheese? I'm not worried, i have other songs i have played before that i can transfer into comfortably. It's not hard to play my music because the tunes and effects of the game help remind what notes are coming up next. Sometimes i get in situations where i have to play a song I've never played before... that can be difficult, but it's not impossible. Being a musician as i am (or a starcraft player who actually uses all the hotkeys) i can usually play a new and original tune, i just remember what inspired my music before: what sounded good and what didn't. I use that as my inspiration. I'm a musician after all ; )
did you know there aren't really any other games that use the keyboard like starcraft? Playing Starcraft looks very similar to the game 'beatmania' which you are probably referencing. This happens to be incredibly popular in Japan and South Korea also. Do you really find it wise to take away the feature that seems to separate Starcraft from every other RTS? You sound a bit foolish to be honest... I will admit the hotkey system for Starcraft was an accident; Blizzard never intended it. You can tell by just looking at how much Warcraft 3 sucks. But why throw it away now? I like playing this complicated strategy game that also requires fast and difficult hand motions to master. Games are supposed to be challenging right? The keyboard is an incredible tool that can be utilized to make a wonderful and difficult game. Even more intimidating is that it must be played with only the left hand while the right is constantly clicking. There are far more buttons than a simple console game controller. Why are we throwing this away?
Why do all the American game companies approach making new RTS titles like they're making the new version of Windows. Maybe it's because the American gaming industry is saturated with newbs who suck at playing their own games and need to make it easier for themselves. They obsess about making everything simpler (also known as newbie). As if making everything easier and simpler would somehow unveil all the incredible strategy behind the game. People who think like this are god damn newbs who are slowly killing esports... And every time i talk to people like this i secretly want to head butt them in the face. Don't you realize that mastering the keyboard in Starcraft took so much strategy!? What genius' the first Korean macro gods were when they found all these techniques to get more units. How awesome that it stepped the game up into an entire new level. It was just another mind game, another puzzle, another great riddle embedded in the game for the gamer to solve and then use against those who attempted to steal his crown.
I want a game that is hard to master on all levels... because i am a true competitive gamer. I want more features that allow overall more advanced players to crush the weaker inferior ones.
Why don't we make make machines that can hit the golf balls for the pro golf players!? I really think it's stupid that golf players have to master hitting the ball before they can focus on all the other elements of golf that can make one the best golfer out there. Then the golf players could just program in where they want the ball to go and voalla! There will be more strategy! Oh wait... no that's a bad idea! Because hitting the golf ball yourself is part of the fucking game! It wasn't some stupid obstacle that was making it worse.
Your chess example is stupid too... pro chess players play with a timer. did you know that? they don't get to sit on their asses for four days until they have the perfect move. In fact they even have tons of chess openings memorized that allow them to utilize special squares... hmmm that sorta reminds me of a build order! If they run out of time they lose! So in fact they do have a certain amount of APM: the number of times they move their pieces! Starcraft has many things chess doesnt (i love chess, i am not talking shit on chess. I used to play chess competitively when i was younger). Chess is a more hyper focused strategy game that, in a sense, focuses on less elements than Starcraft. In a sense Starcraft uses more features in the brain than chess does.
Does Kasprov have to go 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d while watching for idle probes and late pylons while still moving his pieces around on his 8x8 board? No... If he had to do that it would make more room for different skill types. What if Kasparov had to micro his pieces while he was trying to capture his opponents. Oh my god! He might missmicro while he was fumbling through his macro. What if sometimes Kasprov could lose to players who had different styles because of all these new features we added to chess!? He would have to master everything too to stay on top.
Don't you see it? Starcraft is the best RTS so far because all sorts of brains can utilize different aspects of the game. My brother Day[9] could always outmacro me with his fast hands, but many times i could trick him with some sort of creative or unique opening. By us both learning from each others styles we have improved massively. This means you don't have to have just one mindset to be good, you have to master everything. If you want to be good at Starcraft you have to utilize what your good at--if you want to be the best you have to master every aspect in the game. Not just the theoretical strategic concepts.
I don't think Starcraft has been solved at all... The game is merely on an incredibly high level of play. So high that it is become a sport. Players are constantly having to stay in good condition to be good. There are some who have gotten closer to it's vexing solutions than others.
I'm afraid your the one that never understood Starcraft. Hopefully you will understand this new game a little bit better. T.T But don't worry, Blizzard sure didn't understand Starcraft either because they were too busy adding enuf random shit to warcraft 3 to turn it into a fucking gambling game that should be played in casinos.
Blizzard: Please keep Starcraft 2 similar to Starcraft... just build upon the echoing brilliance that you left behind in Starcraft adding new concepts along the way, not abandoning what already worked.
Notice the "Real Time" in RTS. It's real time because you have to think fast and act fast. Why not keep a feature that made that "Real Time" quality so awesome and look so beautiful. Keep it gosu. Keep it sexy.
Let me put some gloves on... this could get very ugly.
I believe you are dead wrong about saying Starcraft is not like a musical instrument because IT IS. The start of the game is very much like playing a song assuming you are actually using the hotkeys which most of you god damn newbies who are reading this forum don't. Look here's my song it's called PvT on Longinus 1 gate goon range into expo followed by 3 gate and robo :
It doesn't seem like such a bad idea too me. SC is the best game ever, but I think it could be improved (dont' hate on me) if the APM or pure raw speed aspect could be slightly minimized therefore making strategy and micro more importand rather than quick mouse speed for macro and quick fingers for hotkeys.
-basically this way top foreigners wouldn't get pwned by lower korean pros purely because the "bad" pros got their mechanics down with a worse grasp of the game.
That's quite a beautiful song you have there, and you still get to play like that with an improved interface. You just have to adjust it, and you actually will have enough hotkeys to continue playing it later in the game when you have more buildings. Here's how your beginning build order would change with MBS:
Think of other sports, take baseball. Why does the MLB use old-fashioned wood bats? Why are steroids banned? Simple, to make the game competitive.
You add things like mass selection and mass macro to the game, you add what are called "hacks" right now. They give players incredible help, and narrow huge skill gaps. Whats makes this game so competitive and brilliant is the skill it takes. Pushing hotkeys over and over sounds mindless, but the ability to multitask while keeping tabs on 5 bases is what makes starcraft competitive.
1) You can only select 1 building at a time 2) You can only select 1 unit at a time 3) Workers DO NOT keep mining after you set them to mine. You must tell them to mine after each time they bring resources to commmand center
This is what Starcraft 2 should look like: pure skill -
That's quite a beautiful song you have there, and you still get to play like that with an improved interface. You just have to adjust it, and you actually will have enough hotkeys to continue playing it later in the game when you have more buildings. Here's how your beginning build order would change with MBS:
What I hope is that with a new improved interface we will see more composers, and less people playing other people's notes
Interesting... did they say they were going to do this? i have been moving this past week and starting a new job. I really have not been up to date with sc2 until today, i don't remember reading that anywhere. I'll have to check tomorrow because i have to wake up for work soon and i need my sleep.
But i agree with you. There is nothing worse than stealing from another artist and calling it your own. But even stealing in Starcraft is so difficult. The ones who tried hardest to steal are probably the ones who are tricked most easily. Becuase while they stole, they could probably not understand. This is for sure. But with an improved vehicle that leads to more new patterns, more possibilities, more new notes and chords to play, we will see the birth of a new and revolutionary RTS. If something like this is the case with Starcraft 2 perhaps we will see even more genera's of music (or in other words, styles of RTS play like turtling, rushing, pushing etc) each with it's own unique yet complex notes to be played. For those you who don't understand what I'm saying, I'm going to say it again.
This is how a foreigner (or at least the bad ones in my opinion) sees starcraft: they always look at the monitor and study the players brains. but they forgot that there's something in between the screen and the monitor. It's where your not looking... it's your hands. If your reading this right now just look at your keyboard. There's a beautiful instrument infront of you that so many forigner starcraft players were too lazy or stupid to utilize. Instead they remembered only half the the hot keys. Or only remembered the hot keys for the units they liked to build. Or used the hot key at the start of the game. Or only use the hot keys that were on a certian location on the keyboard because they were too afraid to move outside their comfort zone. Don't you realize how much more incredible this game is once you've mastered the method for inputting the commands? Then you even have more time to think about strategy. Dosn't that sound strange?... Have you ever been out massed while you were frantically using two fingers on the keyboard (like a newb) to play or clicking on buildings that had hotkeys next to them? What if you just looked hard enough till you saw the code. Wow... I bet you'd feel like fucking neo from the matrix. Those agents wouldn't look so hard to beat after all... You'd probably be able to beat so many of them (oh and matrix two and three sucked by the way). Those of you who hadn't taken the time to figure this out after ten years... my god... again... I'm so sorry. This game could have been so much better for you. Yet you loved it anyways.
Look into this video above, only pretend your not seeing notes that are prewritten. Instead pretend your seeing a fucking war. A crazy war where your playing a different song to win. Your playing against someone else's song. Who's music will be better!? It will be music that was smarter faster and more moving. do you see his hands go? my brother and me played this game when we were children in an arcade next to our mothers house. now imagine instead of that turn table that your playing is your mouse instead. your other hand can only tap the keys. Look back at the screen and imagine your playing starcraft. Only instead of seeing all the keys you need to press on the screen, you have to logically figure out the notes for your next move by thinking about the music your opponent is playing. Only it gets harder. You can lie to him about what song your playing, trick him, mess him up in the middle of a solo. You can do so many things. Those incredible Korean progamers. They see it, they mastered it so that they could BEGIN to master the game. And that's how you play starcraft. Not sitting back like some lazy newb who likes to thoerize about this game while crying because he was too lazy to use a keyboard.
Oh.. and fuck everyone comparing great generals quotes to starcraft 2. There are so many generals who were simply fat assholes who owned large armies that they sent out for the purpose of greed. Maybe they would have liked BGH I don't want to just be a general. i want to be the soliders... the intelligence... the fucking buildings producing the units. I want to be everything.
look... this isn't the 'secret' to starcraft, this is just the first step everyone should be using so that this game isn't a clusterfuck of clicks while you aren't looking at the map or thinking about strategy. Koreans learned it first because so much money was at stake. I personally believe this logic is in every video game out there as long as logic can be used to win. But nothing like this is comparable to the logic we see used in starcraft.
I'm almost angry I've even told you all this in my first post. I came home from work to see that there were tons of "Starcraft" players who didn't even understand how their favorite game worked. Prehaps we let our biggest secrets out when are the most upset. But a new game is coming and we must pave the proper road. Now you can see the wheels that move the warmachine. Perhaps now you can learn how to play.
On May 24 2007 18:44 MyLostTemple wrote: Blizzard sure as fuck didn't understand Starcraft either because they were too busy adding enuf random shit to warcraft 3 to turn it into a fucking gambling game that should be played in casinos.
lol, so so true. I think people give Blizzard too much credit with Wc3. It's such a mess of a game. I certainly hope that Sc2 is just as good as Sc1 or better.
That's quite a beautiful song you have there, and you still get to play like that with an improved interface. You just have to adjust it, and you actually will have enough hotkeys to continue playing it later in the game when you have more buildings. Here's how your beginning build order would change with MBS:
What I hope is that with a new improved interface we will see more composers, and less people playing other people's notes
Interesting... did they say they were going to do this? i have been moving this past week and starting a new job. I really have not been up to date with sc2 until today, i don't remember reading that anywhere. I'll have to check tomorrow because i have to wake up for work soon and i need my sleep.
But i agree with you. There is nothing worse than stealing from another artist and calling it your own. But even stealing in Starcraft is so difficult. The ones who tried hardest to steal are probably the ones who are tricked most easily. Becuase while they stole, they could probably not understand. This is for sure. But with an improved vehicle that leads to more new patterns, more possibilities, more new notes and chords to play, we will see the birth of a new and revolutionary RTS. If something like this is the case with Starcraft 2 perhaps we will see even more genera's of music (or in other words, styles of RTS play like turtling, rushing, pushing etc) each with it's own unique yet complex notes to be played. For those you who don't understand what I'm saying, I'm going to say it again.
This is how a foreigner (or at least the bad ones in my opinion) sees starcraft: they always look at the monitor and study the players brains. but they forgot that there's something in between the screen and the monitor. It's where your not looking... it's your hands. If your reading this right now just look at your keyboard. There's a beautiful instrument infront of you that so many forigner starcraft players were too lazy or stupid to utilize. Instead they remembered only half the the hot keys. Or only remembered the hot keys for the units they liked to build. Or used the hot key at the start of the game. Or only use the hot keys that were on a certian location on the keyboard because they were too afraid to move outside their comfort zone. Don't you realize how much more incredible this game is once you've mastered the method for inputting the commands? Then you even have more time to think about strategy. Dosn't that sound strange?... Have you ever been out massed while you were frantically using two fingers on the keyboard (like a newb) to play or clicking on buildings that had hotkeys next to them? What if you just looked hard enough till you saw the code. Wow... I bet you'd feel like fucking neo from the matrix. Those agents wouldn't look so hard to beat after all... You'd probably be able to beat so many of them (oh and matrix two and three sucked by the way). Those of you who hadn't taken the time to figure this out after ten years... my god... again... I'm so sorry. This game could have been so much better for you. Yet you loved it anyways.
Look into this video above, only pretend your not seeing notes that are prewritten. Instead pretend your seeing a fucking war. A crazy war where your playing a different song to win. Your playing against someone else's song. Who's music will be better!? It will be music that was smarter faster and more moving. do you see his hands go? my brother and me played this game when we were children in an arcade next to our mothers house. now imagine instead of that turn table that your playing is your mouse instead. your other hand can only tap the keys. Look back at the screen and imagine your playing starcraft. Only instead of seeing all the keys you need to press on the screen, you have to logically figure out the notes for your next move by thinking about the music your opponent is playing. Only it gets harder. You can lie to him about what song your playing, trick him, mess him up in the middle of a solo. You can do so many things. Those incredible Korean progamers. They see it, they mastered it so that they could BEGIN to master the game. And that's how you play starcraft. Not sitting back like some lazy newb who likes to thoerize about this game while crying because he was too lazy to use a keyboard.
look... this isn't the 'secret' to starcraft, this is just the first step everyone should be using so that this game isn't a clusterfuck of clicks while you aren't looking at the map or thinking about strategy. Koreans learned it first because so much money was at stake. I personally believe this logic is in every video game out there as long as logic can be used to win. But nothing like this is comparable to the logic we see used in starcraft.
I'm almost angry I've even told you all this in my first post. I came home from work to see that there were tons of "Starcraft" players who didn't even understand how their favorite game worked. Prehaps we let our biggest secrets out when are the most upset. But a new game is coming and we must pave the proper road. Now you can see the wheels that move the warmachine. Perhaps now you can learn how to play.
Is it just me that thinks that winning should be about more then just memorizing a build order and executing it fast enough? Besides the keyboard will be alot easier to use in SC2 since they'll probably allow the hotkeys to be fully configurable so you can use the qwert asdg zxcvb setup for all hotkeys.
Your chess example is stupid too... pro chess players play with a timer. did you know that? they don't get to sit on their asses for four days until they have the perfect move. In fact they even have tons of chess openings memorized that allow them to utilize special squares... hmmm that sorta reminds me of a build order! If they run out of time they lose! So in fact they do have a certain amount of APM: the number of times they move their pieces! Starcraft has many things chess doesnt (i love chess, i am not talking shit on chess. I used to play chess competitively when i was younger). Chess is a more hyper focused strategy game that, in a sense, focuses on less elements than Starcraft. In a sense Starcraft uses more features in the brain than chess does.
The time limit is meant to tax your mind, not your handspeed. Chess players don't lose by time because they didn't have the handspeed to move the pieces fast enough, it's because they didn't THINK fast enough. Big difference.
Look, I don't mind the heavy focus on mechanics in FPS games, it's more suitable there, I just don't think strategy games are supposed to be played like that arcade game in the video you linked here. I guess your views are so fundamentally different than mine on this matter that it's pointless to discuss it any further. We'll agree to disagree, and that's the end of it.
Your chess example is stupid too... pro chess players play with a timer. did you know that? they don't get to sit on their asses for four days until they have the perfect move. In fact they even have tons of chess openings memorized that allow them to utilize special squares... hmmm that sorta reminds me of a build order! If they run out of time they lose! So in fact they do have a certain amount of APM: the number of times they move their pieces! Starcraft has many things chess doesnt (i love chess, i am not talking shit on chess. I used to play chess competitively when i was younger). Chess is a more hyper focused strategy game that, in a sense, focuses on less elements than Starcraft. In a sense Starcraft uses more features in the brain than chess does.
The time limit is meant to tax your mind, not your handspeed. Chess players don't lose by time because they didn't have the handspeed to move the pieces fast enough, it's because they didn't THINK fast enough. Big difference.
Look, I don't mind the heavy focus on mechanics in FPS games, it's more suitable there, I just don't think strategy games are supposed to be played like that arcade game in the video you linked here. I guess your views are so fundamentally different than mine on this matter that it's pointless to discuss it any further. We'll agree to disagree, and that's the end of it.
That's because chess is a TURN BASED STRATEGY GAME whereas starcraft is a REAL TIME STRATEGY GAME.
The Real Time aspect of the game talks about your decisions having to be taken in real time, not about how relatively difficult or easy it is to transfer your decisions to the game through the UI. We already discussed this point: It's either real time or it's not. Making the UI easier/harder to use doesn't make the game itself any less/more Real Time. Also, the skill should be in fighting against the other player, not against a crippled interface!!
In chess, the opponent makes you waste your time by putting you in a more difficult position. It can be like that in bw: Sometimes, the terran takes the center of the map with a huge mass and proper positioning for the units, and it becomes almost impossible to attack with P no matter how much good you are with the UI. Sometimes someone distracts you with army movements, and storms your worker line with a drop while you're looking elsewhere. That last example is part of what's exciting about playing a strategy game in Real Time. Distraction is less effective in chess because your opponent has plenty of time to examine your maneuvers on the entire board. Handling these situations or making them happen to your enemy, that's what RTS should be about. Mashing buttons is simply the way to operate the UI. I don't see this as the actual 'playing' experience, it's about as interesting as typing in the characters and pressing the arrow keys while I am programming something. In programming, the most important thing is the design (strategy), then the implementation detail (tactics) written in the programming language itself and least of all the actual typing I have to do on the keyboard (UI control). Strategy > tactics > UI control. That's how I would like it to be.
On May 25 2007 05:02 EmS.Radagast wrote: The Real Time aspect of the game talks about your decisions having to be taken in real time, not about how relatively difficult or easy it is to transfer your decisions to the game through the UI. We already discussed this point: It's either real time or it's not. Making the UI easier/harder to use doesn't make the game itself any less/more Real Time. Also, the skill should be in fighting against the other player, not against a crippled interface!!
In chess, the opponent makes you waste your time by putting you in a more difficult position. It can be like that in bw: Sometimes, the terran takes the center of the map with a huge mass and proper positioning for the units, and it becomes almost impossible to attack with P no matter how much good you are with the UI. Sometimes someone distracts you with army movements, and storms your worker line with a drop while you're looking elsewhere. That last example is part of what's exciting about playing a strategy game in Real Time. Distraction is less effective in chess because your opponent has plenty of time to examine your maneuvers on the entire board. Handling these situations or making them happen to your enemy, that's what RTS should be about. Mashing buttons is simply the way to operate the UI. I don't see this as the actual 'playing' experience, it's about as interesting as typing in the characters and pressing the arrow keys while I am programming something. In programming, the most important thing is the design (strategy), then the implementation detail (tactics) written in the programming language itself and least of all the actual typing I have to do on the keyboard (UI control). Strategy > tactics > UI control. That's how I would like it to be.
I fully agree with you. More fighting the enemy player and less fighting the UI. Personally I can't imagine how anyone can think getting around inheritly flawed controls is fun. I suppose it's the opposite for alot of other persons on this forum though, they can't imagine it being fun if they don't have to fight with the controls.
some really good posts in this thread by both sides.. i agree with both to a certain extent..
People are acting like what got you hooked on bw was mashing hotkeys and tryin to get high apm, what really gets people about bw is the storyline,the balance between the races and the gameplay. hotkeying all your rax to one button makes the game alot easier for sure, but i just dont think that multiple building selection is going to ruin bw or change the level between noob-average-pro. Especially after hearing what blizzard has been sayin and showing it looks as if this game is gonna require alot of strategy and alot of ingenuity and still require quick hand speed and memorization of the keyboard maybe not in the way it used to be. u can still hotkey your buildings individually if ud like.
Heres the thing about starcraft 1 amongst non-pro's: 70% or more of them are considered "noobs" by the starcraft elitists because they either dont play the right maps, dont use hotkeys properly etc. alot of these people play for fun once or twice a week on bnet and love the game as much as tasteless, alot of these players could actually be great players but dont want to play the game maniac style like nada because they know they wont be pros so why bother learning the hard way while they can still have fun. Blizzard cannot and will not ignore this mass, the game wont be tailored for a small amount of people, but it will be balanced and hard to master, noobs are not gonna suddenly be good because of multiple building select and some UI refinements. its like any other competitive sport or game in the world, there are the elite few... and the mass of amateurs..
Take basketball for example: It started as a pretty crude game dominated by giant players, but through out the years with the advent of the shot clock in th 50s and the widening of the lane (from 6 to 12 feet) where big guys would dominate; the game began to become more exciting and high scoring. Later in the 60s Wilt Chamberlain forced them to change the lane from 12 feet to 16 feet because of his domination. Also in the late 90s Handchecking was made illegal, which led many no-name guards to explode the following year, what followed was the nba making several changes in the '00s to make the game easier on offense.. What im trying to say is the in all sports and games there are changes made,like NBA making it easier for kobe (or any guard) to score 81, and like Blizzard making it easier for starcraft players to macro 20 gates.. both rules have their consequences too: NBAs changes opened up the game for more offensive freedom and movement off the ball, defense also became more important, the game is overall more exciting and fastpaced. Hopefully does similar for SC2. just for the record: Boxer is Jordan, Kobe is probably Savior.. lol
The people valiantly against multiple building selection dont like change, especially tthe ones who spent many many hours training like pros and getting paid like zeros (no offense intended), and i completely understand that, im sure when Wilt was dunking on fools scorin 50pts a game, and then they widened the lane and created 3 second rule, he was probably mad as hell, but he kept goin and still dominated... its a case of people not wanting to let go of the past, Starcraft:Brood Wars is the only video game i ever played alot, and is to me and many others in this world the undisputed best Game in the world (including board games card games etc but not futbol or basket). I dont want Brood Wars to change and it wont, because what is coming soon is not Starcraft 1 Brood Wars.. Its a new game and From what it looks like its hard to say whether or not Starcraft 2 will exceed or fail in comparison to the original, only time will tell. For now lets just have faith in Blizzard, and i hope they read this thread..
Wow...great post from Tasteless....I finally can actually understand the ''keep the interface shit'' school of thought. Good to see it written so passionately, and now I finally feel some sympathy for everyone seeing Starcraft 2 as a step in the wrong direction (as the interface will obviously be changed from the SC one). You've finally conveyed why SC is seen as so special in those ways.
But...I'm still with radagast et al....I don't want to play the starcraft that Tasteless and you guys love. I have no desire to develop those mechanical skills on a computer game- I'd rather devote that time to playing guitar, and play computer games with more user friendly interfaces. Like Radagast I want to play a strategy game in real time, with the oppurtunity to act simultaneously to and decieve my opponent- engage in a battle of wills. The whole total focus of mechanical skills + brain just doesn't appeal to me- I'd rather just need 100apm to compete at top level, even if I know that won't happen. And to be honest, most gamers I talk to are on the same side. Its too much to have to devote so much time to mastering an interface- even for your favourite game. I've played games all my life, and I agree SC is the best RTS ever made. But with improvements to interface, it could be so much better by my (and other gamers standards). I don't want the same intense experience- I want a different one- focussed on planning and thinking (under pressure), instead of executing multiple commands under pressure of interface (and trying to think too). Hopefully starcraft 2 will have it.
Just one question though- if they made starcraft 2 with the option to either play with a great super user-friendly interface (no unit select limit, select multiple buildings, sophisticated hot key system, even autobuild/ orders for troops like retreat on sighting enemy etc) or to play with a SC1 replica interface, would many of you really choose to play on the server with the old style interface? I guess tasteless would (and fair play to him), but what about the rest of you?
Oh man... Now I'm mad. Zironic... Radagast... I wish i could use that new protoss blink ability to warp in front of your computer, punch you in the mouth for speaking such blasphemy, and then warp back into Denver and continue writing this post.
I can't do that. So I'll use my words to crush you. But first, watch this video. Watch it the whole way through.
Shall i go further? You called it button mashing. Wow. You know what i call button mashing? when that newbie never learned how to play Marvel vs capcom 2 or Soulcalibur in the arcade. They just sat there violently hitting buttons like some lunatic not even looking at their hands. Meanwhile i was blocking and watching his moves becuase i had a bad ass combo ready to fuck him up when his useless and illogical mashing gave me the room to start attacking. Maybe it was something you had to get comfortable with at first, some newbie mashing keys and beating you in a fighter. But then you learn how to play the game. Ask Justin Wong.
I wonder if he was just mashing that game... i bet you would think so. Did you hear that clicking amongst the cheers? that was the sound of his music crushing his opponent. Alot like i'm crushing you.
Then there are counterstrike players (i'm talking more about 1.6, i don't like the randomness of the bullets in source, source is beautiful but cs 1.6 i think has proven to be a more sucessful esport. I'm also not a fps expert, i just love watching CS). They have patterns memorized in their brains aswell. Just watch when they buy, look at how they bind their keys. There are so many patterns there aswell. You know they actually map out the locations they're going to stay in right? They don't just randomly run around shooting guns at each other. They have a plan! Did you think when 3D starts up the game and Volcano says "Ok guys i'm just going to buy this gun, i don't care what gun, just whatever i feel like, and kill everyone, try not to get shot though because if too many of us die we might be TOTALLY FUCKED." No... Ofcourse not. This is why newbies who cry camper in CS need to be shot. They almost always are in the game anyways.
I get the impression that you suck at chess. I bet you went crazy the first time you were checkmated in four moves because you didn't know to look at all those pieces on the board before moving again. The good chess player watches carefully, but he have vision of the whole map, he doesn't have to scout... Guess what! In chess your only allowed to play with one hand. In starcraft you play with both hands. You even use all your fingers to play. Five fingers on the keyboard (and don't even tell me you don't use your thumb, you use it on the right ctrl key to hotkey keys like 0 and 9, but i bet you were too stupid to take the keys off.) Five fingers to hold the mouse (use your thumb, pinky and ring finger to hold the mouse correctly during intense micro, use your other two fingers to click).
You know what else makes you newbie? You know how i know you've never played chess competitively? Because you didn't know the rules about touching the pieces or you would never have brought up this argument in the first place. In chess if you touch the wrong piece, you HAVE to move it. Those are the rules. If you touch your opponents piece you have to capture it (assuming this is possible, but even then it's still completely illegal to touch other pieces). Technically those two players in the video are microing their pieces. Watch the video again, they move their pieces so elegantly because they don't want to lose because of their own sloppy errors... micro. By the way, pausing is illegal in the Korean proleagues, just watch that video of nal ra getting disqualified. It's illegal because it's unfair to stop the game and think for more time then the rules would allow for. Don't worry, I'm not even finished destroying you yet.
hm... wow... those sure look similar. I wish Alexandra Kosteniuk was here so she could slam dunk you in a game of chess. There's more though. But it's based off of what your opponent is doing. First there was Chess, Now there is Starcraft. If you have a better method of understanding strategy games please tell me. Please stop crying about how hard the keyboard is to use. Kids like you were the ones i always wanted to play in tournaments first; kids like you are free wins. At every lan tournament i ever showed up at, i would watch all the other players hands. There was always a group of people not using their hands. They also always had alot of money and cried about how the game is stupid because some people just get a whole bunch of units too fast.
The problem is that these poor people were too stupid or lazy to learn how this game is ment to be played. They didn't win much. Serves them right. Strategy games have logical rules like i already said. Because logical concepts are built off math. Not off a bunch of fruity intangible concepts that can't be understood or explained. There has to something like this so the game itself doesnt become random like gambling. We don't want the winner of the game to be some doushebag who got lucky. If you want esports to get big it must but be skill based maybe you should go play poker. That game has skill and luck (like warcraft 3 rofl). I don't like feeling lucky, i like feeling elite.
Look man, I'll be honest. Not everything is easy to learn. On a personal note i was born dyslexic and i see many letters backwards. I just misspell often (thank you spellchecker^^). I was conscious enough to use it on my posts, if you check other posts by me on this thread, you'll see that there are several words periodically misspelled. But god damnit! I still taught myself how to read. Now i read fucking books all the time. I just had to teach myself different methods of reading that suited my eyes. I love reading philosophy the most. I think I've explained the metaphysics of starcraft enough here. And my philosophies > yours.
But just like i was dyslexic with reading and writing, YOU are dyslexic with starcraft. YOU have failed to see how the game is played and YOU can't read starcraft very well at all. Perhaps all people are disabled in one way or another. What's important is that you overcome whatever was disabling you before. Stop crying about how you don't want to use the keyboard. If you don't like it why don't you go pick up another newbie RTS game where keyboards. I Don't know what starcraft 2 is like, new features are fine! I just don't want blizzard to screw this up and avoid using the tool that was used to make the game so perfect.
Also, i apologize for my rudeness and profanity earlier. But newbies like you make me so mad because your not taking the time to learn the game yourself. I'm also not talking shit on Blizzard because i want to see this game first before i start judge it. Until then I'm going to attack what i see about the interface, because that's all i have to do. Look at your keyboard and start to practice your instrument so that at your next concert or performance you could awe your audience and bring joy to your fans. You wont have any if you've never played it before.ore.
Attacking my skill level at either game doesn't make for a sound or convincing argument Tasteless, I'm sorry. You made a ton of assumptions about what I know and don't know about these games in your post, and most of them were wrong. The rest of the content isn't worth replying to.
I understand where you're coming from and see the validity of this mindset of yours, however much it conflicts with my own understanding/ideals/interests/whatever. You on the other hand, seem to be entirely uncapable of acknowledging my side of the argument. You can't really get past the Newbie name-calling phase.
EDIT: I re-read your post and realized you are basically IN LOVE with hacking away at the keyboard as the ultimate meaning of RTS gameplay and/or life in general. It doesn't seem you can analyze the subject matter rationally.
On May 25 2007 16:37 MyLostTemple wrote: Oh man... Now I'm mad. Zironic... Radagast... I wish i could use that new protoss blink ability to warp in front of your computer, punch you in the mouth for speaking such blasphemy, and then warp back into Denver and continue writing this post.
On May 25 2007 13:03 Tal wrote: Wow...great post from Tasteless....I finally can actually understand the ''keep the interface shit'' school of thought. Good to see it written so passionately, and now I finally feel some sympathy for everyone seeing Starcraft 2 as a step in the wrong direction (as the interface will obviously be changed from the SC one). You've finally conveyed why SC is seen as so special in those ways.
But...I'm still with radagast et al....I don't want to play the starcraft that Tasteless and you guys love. I have no desire to develop those mechanical skills on a computer game- I'd rather devote that time to playing guitar, and play computer games with more user friendly interfaces. Like Radagast I want to play a strategy game in real time, with the oppurtunity to act simultaneously to and decieve my opponent- engage in a battle of wills. The whole total focus of mechanical skills + brain just doesn't appeal to me- I'd rather just need 100apm to compete at top level, even if I know that won't happen. And to be honest, most gamers I talk to are on the same side. Its too much to have to devote so much time to mastering an interface- even for your favourite game. I've played games all my life, and I agree SC is the best RTS ever made. But with improvements to interface, it could be so much better by my (and other gamers standards). I don't want the same intense experience- I want a different one- focused on planning and thinking (under pressure), instead of executing multiple commands under pressure of interface (and trying to think too). Hopefully starcraft 2 will have it.
Just one question though- if they made starcraft 2 with the option to either play with a great super user-friendly interface (no unit select limit, select multiple buildings, sophisticated hot key system, even auto build/ orders for troops like retreat on sighting enemy etc) or to play with a SC1 replica interface, would many of you really choose to play on the server with the old style interface? I guess tasteless would (and fair play to him), but what about the rest of you?
thanks, but... look man, you don't need high apm necessarily to play starcraft. obviously i did 0p once when i made my first probe, but in between that time i hit: 0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p 0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p that many times before i had the money for my next probe. I do that all the time and don't even realize I'm doing it. But those are logged as 'Actions' in APM. This is where you get a bunch of stupid newbies saying 'omg but i will never have 600 apm like nada.'
Look at the legitimate movements in the game. How many times do i BUILD something in the game. There are other reasons for high apm too. Remember me saying talking about the action 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d many protoss players can do in .5 seconds? Well while those dragoons are buildings i hit 4567890 and watch the bottom of the screen, i make sure i made my first motion correctly. I know if i did it right because i can see all the dragoons buildings at the same time at the same rate. imagine i did this a few times while microing and clicking. Wow i would have some very high apm.
Starcraft is only bursts of APM. Only small explosions of quick actions. The problem is we measured them in minutes instead of every 5 seconds. That's my theory at least. If starcraft 2 had 100 apm required to be good, i still think a player who's checking to make sure his shit is building and constantly microing his troops would end up with more apm, just in a different manner. I once saw an old rep of fisheye beating nada. Nada had 400 apm, fisheye had 130 i believe. Fisheye was also a very careful and precise player. APM isn't everything, it's a factor. And at least in my opinion, Koreans go a little crazy on it.
Sometimes i see Koreans do weird builds that make no sense to me, maybe some (not all) focus on getting their apm so high because they hear that other players have high apm as well. I don't know. If blizzard wants to deal with that. It would be interesting, but it's not going to happen unless they learned from their mistakes. I suppose you could penalize the player for actions that have no purpose. But just remember what actual actions that occur in the game are versus actions that are spammed because the player knows what motion to preform next.
On May 25 2007 16:56 EmS.Radagast wrote: I understand where you're coming from and see the validity of this mindset of yours, however much it conflicts with my own understanding/ideals/interests/whatever. You on the other hand, seem to be entirely uncapable of acknowledging my side of the argument. You can't really get past the Newbie name-calling phase.
EDIT: I re-read your post and realized you are basically IN LOVE with hacking away at the keyboard as the ultimate meaning of RTS gameplay and/or life in general. It doesn't seem you can analyze the subject matter rationally.
if this were true, nal ra wouldn't be my favorite player. because he's the smartest korean in my opinion. i'm simply saying keep the keyboard man. keep the gameplay aspect of the game. keep something about starcraft in the next starcraft. your acting like i don't know that psychology is part of the game. i do, there is psychology in all of those games i showed you. we havn't even begun to tal about the mouse. All the tricks a player can use to trick his opponent. To out menuver him. That's why boxer was my first starcraft hero. again, more features. Do you really think i want starcraft 2 played on a giant piano? that's an interesting thought. But anyone who thinks Starcraft was PURELY a combination of hotkeys is silly to. Have you watched pimpest plays? Damn there is some crazy stuff in that. However the hotkeys seem to have this massive role in the game.
If they nurf hotkeys that's fine, I lose to Day[9] more than i beat him. His hands are quite fast. He took piano lessons as a child. I just don't want this oversimplified building selection to be filled with good graphics and nothing more. I want to see new ways of microing, new techniques for diffrent brains to utilize. I want to see the next level or RTS gaming.
And again i apologize. Most of my comments are sarcastic. But prehaps you don't find a little trash talk fun. I always did. But i wasn't really talking to you necessarily, i was talking to all the starcraft players on tl.net who have refused to learn the hotkeys. Who thought that this wasn't part of the game. IT WAS. Your input is valid, but i am flustered with you aswell for not learning the techniques (your earlyer post only just brought up that you are starting to get it).
I love all people who love starcraft. Just understand that i'm also sitting here fighting for something i believe in. That esports can become just like real sports. Just as big everywhere. As long as we are moving forward and not backwards. I don't want to play Starcraft and only Starcraft for my entire life. Although i will always go back to it for nostalgia. I intend to play starcraft 2 and cast for it aswell.
New things can be scary, and this has always been the favorite of my favorite games.
truce? <3
and by the way, is trev right about the new system? if he is i'll drop this hotkey discussion. I just havn't heard about this.
On May 25 2007 16:37 MyLostTemple wrote: Oh man... Now I'm mad. Zironic... Radagast... I wish i could use that new protoss blink ability to warp in front of your computer, punch you in the mouth for speaking such blasphemy, and then warp back into Denver and continue writing this post.
LOL
Nice post. But it's like talking to a wall
It's like one of those endless politics debates in that people have established opinions and nobody seriously intends to reconsider their opinion, but argue anyway. But I think towards the end several good points were made by both sides. It was a good discussion overall, I seriously think somone at blizzard should email the development team a summarized version of it
On May 25 2007 16:37 MyLostTemple wrote: Oh man... Now I'm mad. Zironic... Radagast... I wish i could use that new protoss blink ability to warp in front of your computer, punch you in the mouth for speaking such blasphemy, and then warp back into Denver and continue writing this post.
LOL
Nice post. But it's like talking to a wall
It's like one of those endless politics debates in that people have established opinions and nobody seriously intends to reconsider their opinion, but argue anyway. But I think towards the end several good points were made by both sides. It was a good discussion overall, I seriously think somone at blizzard should email the development team a summarized version of it
That's quite a beautiful song you have there, and you still get to play like that with an improved interface. You just have to adjust it, and you actually will have enough hotkeys to continue playing it later in the game when you have more buildings. Here's how your beginning build order would change with MBS:
What I hope is that with a new improved interface we will see more composers, and less people playing other people's notes
Interesting... did they say they were going to do this?
They didn't say it with words no. But judging from
how the mechanics of all of Blizzard's games are streamlined, yet they include different playing styles
how the Protoss production was shown in the gameplay video twice, mildly different from eachother
my belief that Blizzard listens to their audience and wants to correct some of their mistakes from the release of Warcraft 3
I find it quite probable.
I also think it would be a good middle ground between those that are totally against MBS and those that want production to work exactly like in Warcraft 3.
Another possibility is that the order 4ddd can also be done with 4[ctrl/shift/alt]d. But we'll just have to wait and see. (4=select group of gateways, d=warp in dragoon, [ctrl/shift/alt]=give next order to all selected units/buildings (watch closely the difference between warping in Stalkers and Zealots in the gameplay video to see what I mean))
Of course I may be totally utterly wrong, and that only warp gates has this flexible functionality.
(sorry, looks like this discussion is nearing an end. But damn it, i typed up a crapload this afternoon, so here it goes)) ((and my new pc doesnt have word on it yet... note to self, don't edit a post in wordpad. yuck. sorry for the \\\ ) Part 1
I also loved the post from Tasteless. Very nice post... very clear and fun to read. I can agree with a large portion of what was said. There have been several good posts pro-MBS and anti-MBS. I have some stuff on my mind that is related... so if you don\\\'t mind a really long post go ahead and read.
My concern is micro vs macro late game. I have a great deal of beef with what I see happen with micro at even the pro levels of the game and I think MBS would change it for the better... and perhaps I just realized this particular thing on the last two VODs I watched of some recent pro matches. The sloppiness. The sloppiness just irks the crap out of me. The fans are probably calling me insane ... the pros aren\\\'t sloppy in Starcraft- that\\\'s more than ridiculous!!! And that\\\'s my exact point.
The beautiful game becomes an ulgy mess. Chaos is my friend... but sloppiness in Starcraft KILLS me. What sloppiness? Read on.
I\\\'ll just never get over the fact that even the pros make so many small sloppy mistakes... not because they don\\\'t know better, not the ones where they were attacked in three places and couldn\\\'t keep up, but the little sloppy errors because they had to manage their base/production. And I\\\'m not talking about the baby pros... I\\\'m talking about the guys at the top of their game. How often have I seen VODs where there are 4 or 5 SCVs on a 3 gas mine in late game? How often have I seen control groups 1,2, and 3 contain high templar... and they are also attack moved into the fray before casting and only half of the templar get to cast storm before they die? How often do you see lurkers die before they even burrow (ok hopefully not much, but it made me really sick)? How often do you see a nice tricky strat by Boxer lose him the game because, perhaps, he didn\\\'t build units while executing the strat?
I am all for mistakes made (losing more units than not) because you were busy macroing and not watching the battle by choice. But I am 100% against mistakes made WHILE you were microing the battle because you knew you had to macro, and macroing took up 70%-90% of your time at the end of the game.
I guess this is where people take their sides and things get tricky. As time goes on (game goes to late game), macro takes more effort. As time goes on the SAME things happens for microing a battle. Generally, as time goes on, macro becomes much more important than micro (until money is ran up or perhaps until mutual base destruction becomes the goal). I\\\'d like to see a bit more micro late game.
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?
1. Does it hurt Micro and Macro both... equally? Hard to say.
2. Does it benefit the newb only? Don\\\'t think so.
3. Does it actually make the game more battle and maneuver based? Probably.
4. Would being more battle and maneuver based mean all the players that rely on APM would become much worse players? I seriously doubt it.
5. Would some pro players be hurt by MBS? Probably... but only those that didn\\\'t master every aspect of the game.
6. Does MBS take away from the beauty of the game of SC2? We can\\\'t answer this, because there may be so much more to do... we won\\\'t know till we play. And really play... not just 1 month of alpha testing.
I will say this. Don\\\'t be so sure of why you didn\\\'t enjoy Warcraft 3. The design sounded like it\\\'d be fun for me, but for whatever reason I just couldnt stick with it. It wasn\\\'t as fun as SC. So i won\\\'t take a hard stance on MBS. The situation for SC2 and MBS isn\\\'t clear until the game is played. It could be for the better... it could be for the worse. But I will stand by my distinct preference that sloppy micro, when you are trying to micro, is just a travesty to see.
------
MBS would take away from one large luck factor in SC. Those every so present moments at fastest play games (it wasn\\\'t always fastest in the old days) where you decide to go back to your base to build men during a battle... and then because of that 2 second delay, you lost half of your force due to something that you totally could have prevented if you had watched the battle. Sometimes you are able to avoid these simply due to good scouting and not being surprised... but sometimes you don\\\'t know what\\\'s in the back of that tank push because you don\\\'t have a comstat (toss/zerg) to get past the turrets, tanks, and mines. Well, perhaps you can\\\'t take your eyes off a tank push, but late game that means death. With MBS, you could keep fighting when you knew it was important and not take your eyes off the battle at that point in time.
MBS frees up more hotkeys and will allow for more hotkeying of groups of units... for fancier flanks and attacking more areas at once.
As some have pointed out, for maximum mechnical and dexterity you could actually take away some of the UI features like hotkeying units, etc. There is a balance to be made, for sure. I don\\\'t think anyone would argue that being able to hotkey units is a bad thing... yet in the old days of RTS you couldn\\\'t do it and it required more actions to do the same thing you can do in Starcraft. This hardly makes Starcraft a less skillful game.
MBS would fix something that would make me happy. A pet peeve of mine is rallying production facilities one at a time. it\\\'s fine when you have two gates. When you have 10+ gates it\\\'s more than a little annoying to do them one at a time without hotkeys and just about impossible to have all 10+ of them hotkeyed.
-Realizations-
Realization: After thinking on this more, I\\\'m actually leaning to MBS being a good thing.
Realization2 (slightly off topic, but while we\\\'re on design): Going back to the \\\"fast speed\\\" vs \\\"fastest speed\\\"... gamers will gravitate to fastest, but I think fast speed games typically emphasize early game balance, whereas fastest speed games typically emphasize late game balance. Early game balance being more critical in design so that late game can even be achieved. I hope to see fast speed (or faster) played in the SC2 beta.
Realization 3: i take back what i said in other post a little. Perhaps not all races in SC are micro/macro equal. Terran must be more macro friendly despite Boxer\\\'s micro fame. i say this because (correct me if i\\\'m wrong) there are more terran pros making it to higher levels of tournaments and more of their styles usually revolve around late game macro. And Terran, perhaps, has the easiest chance to defend against early aggressive micro/harrass and even late game harrass... early vs. zerg is probably the trickiest but that\\\'s 1 out of 3 matches (or 1 out of 4 now with Terran\\\'s large presence).
Conclusion?
Blizzard will do what they think is right. They are smart, lucky, and stubborn. I think they\\\'ll get it right.
I agree with the above post, mbs = better gameplay. Besides lots of times when i play zerg I have 80+ units and to keep re hotkeying them as they die/different units are added to my army and attacking 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a (which isnt' hard but often one or more groups will get missed, whether my fault or just battle.net missing a command). Mainly with zerg do I think this is a good idea, its too difficult to run around selecting really small units and grouping them properly while expanding/building drones/building more units/attacking/haraassing/defending. If you take out the trediousness of building drones/building more units there is still alot of shit to do. But then again nobody outside blizz really knows what sc2 is all about.
Good multitasking and speed does not take physical speed or coordination. ANYONE can have 300 apm, but very few people can have 300 effective apm.
The ability to constantly be controlling so many aspects is a mental challenge, not a physical one. Maybe good micro takes great accuracy and hand speed, but its generally not worth it if you can't multitask well enough.
I don't see why you guys are so against macro as opposed to micro. The MBS doesn't take away from micro, instead the attention of micro gets moved elsewhere instead of building selection.. better unit control.. better resource management, better scouting.. etc. MBS just displaces the uneccessary micro there.. and allows you to focus more on the action at hand.. that is combat and recourses.
The pros, to play efficiently, will probaly still use individual building selection.. its not like they're forced to use MBS only. You can't compare MBS with fighter button smashing.. thats a little bit of a far fetched comparisn. MBS just makes the game more newb friendly ON START up.. they still have a long way to go to reach expert levels. I played WC3 a lot, which featured MBS, a newb will lose 100% of the time garuanteed.. I've played against enough of them to know.
On May 25 2007 20:16 yangstuh wrote: I don't see why you guys are so against macro as opposed to micro. The MBS doesn't take away from micro, instead the attention of micro gets moved elsewhere instead of building selection.. better unit control.. better resource management, better scouting.. etc. MBS just displaces the uneccessary micro there.. and allows you to focus more on the action at hand.. that is combat and recourses.
The pros, to play efficiently, will probaly still use individual building selection.. its not like they're forced to use MBS only. You can't compare MBS with fighter button smashing.. thats a little bit of a far fetched comparisn. MBS just makes the game more newb friendly ON START up.. they still have a long way to go to reach expert levels. I played WC3 a lot, which featured MBS, a newb will lose 100% of the time garuanteed.. I've played against enough of them to know.
If theres a button for every combo, anyone can be great at the game with moderate intelligence.
Now you remove the buttons for combos (mbs) and sudenly, it becomes more competative. You have to...remember orders? utilize the dexterity in your hands? heaven forbid you have to practice!
On May 25 2007 20:16 yangstuh wrote: I don't see why you guys are so against macro as opposed to micro. The MBS doesn't take away from micro, instead the attention of micro gets moved elsewhere instead of building selection.. better unit control.. better resource management, better scouting.. etc. MBS just displaces the uneccessary micro there.. and allows you to focus more on the action at hand.. that is combat and recourses.
The pros, to play efficiently, will probaly still use individual building selection.. its not like they're forced to use MBS only. You can't compare MBS with fighter button smashing.. thats a little bit of a far fetched comparisn. MBS just makes the game more newb friendly ON START up.. they still have a long way to go to reach expert levels. I played WC3 a lot, which featured MBS, a newb will lose 100% of the time garuanteed.. I've played against enough of them to know.
Carlo?
MBS in WC3 is much different, macro does not play a big as a role on WC3 as it does in SC. I don't understand this obsession with micro and how all of a sudden micro is super-strategic while macro is button-mashing. You probably do more (mouse and keyboard)button mashing while microing than macroing.
On May 25 2007 20:16 yangstuh wrote: I don't see why you guys are so against macro as opposed to micro. The MBS doesn't take away from micro, instead the attention of micro gets moved elsewhere instead of building selection.. better unit control.. better resource management, better scouting.. etc. MBS just displaces the uneccessary micro there.. and allows you to focus more on the action at hand.. that is combat and recourses.
The pros, to play efficiently, will probaly still use individual building selection.. its not like they're forced to use MBS only. You can't compare MBS with fighter button smashing.. thats a little bit of a far fetched comparisn. MBS just makes the game more newb friendly ON START up.. they still have a long way to go to reach expert levels. I played WC3 a lot, which featured MBS, a newb will lose 100% of the time garuanteed.. I've played against enough of them to know.
If theres a button for every combo, anyone can be great at the game with moderate intelligence.
Now you remove the buttons for combos (mbs) and sudenly, it becomes more competative. You have to...remember orders? utilize the dexterity in your hands? heaven forbid you have to practice!
Why are you guys trying to turn this game into a fighter game.. its an RTS. Anyways Blizzard is intelligent enough to implement MBS, and I don't think they're going to remove it ever.
>_>
Its like you're trying to force the world to drive manual instead of automatic.
Do you gusy honestly think a newb is going to 'accidentily' win against a pro just because of MBS? Please say no... it just doesn't make sense.
On May 25 2007 20:16 yangstuh wrote: I don't see why you guys are so against macro as opposed to micro. The MBS doesn't take away from micro, instead the attention of micro gets moved elsewhere instead of building selection.. better unit control.. better resource management, better scouting.. etc. MBS just displaces the uneccessary micro there.. and allows you to focus more on the action at hand.. that is combat and recourses.
The pros, to play efficiently, will probaly still use individual building selection.. its not like they're forced to use MBS only. You can't compare MBS with fighter button smashing.. thats a little bit of a far fetched comparisn. MBS just makes the game more newb friendly ON START up.. they still have a long way to go to reach expert levels. I played WC3 a lot, which featured MBS, a newb will lose 100% of the time garuanteed.. I've played against enough of them to know.
If theres a button for every combo, anyone can be great at the game with moderate intelligence.
Now you remove the buttons for combos (mbs) and sudenly, it becomes more competative. You have to...remember orders? utilize the dexterity in your hands? heaven forbid you have to practice!
Why are you guys trying to turn this game into a fighter game.. its an RTS. Anyways Blizzard is intelligent enough to implement MBS, and I don't think they're going to remove it ever.
>_>
Its like you're trying to force the world to drive manual instead of automatic.
Do you gusy honestly think a newb is going to 'accidentily' win against a pro just because of MBS? Please say no... it just doesn't make sense.
Woah, woah, woah, automatic transmission? The reason automatic transmission is so popular is because it takes zero skill to operate. The same reason professional racers have manual transmission. When you make a car for the public, your not trying to encourage innovation and skill, when you make a strategy game you are!
In my opinion, too find what tasteless is looking for, you need to add more abilities to individual units to spice up the micro part of the game play.
There are plenty of things the developers could do, especially with the help of TL, to add "magic" or "energy" to more units, abilities that recharge over time, or require energy or magic, then add hotkeys to the abilities and voila.
This is a classic apples vs oranges argument. There is no correct side because its completely a matter of TASTE. Either you like the physical aspect (or button mashing as one side likes to call it) of SC or you don't.
On May 25 2007 23:09 RyanTuosto wrote: In my opinion, too find what tasteless is looking for, you need to add more abilities to individual units to spice up the micro part of the game play.
There are plenty of things the developers could do, especially with the help of TL, to add "magic" or "energy" to more units, abilities that recharge over time, or require energy or magic, then add hotkeys to the abilities and voila.
From the information we've gotten till now, it seems that's exactly what Starcraft II will be avoiding (in contrast to Warcraft III). In Starcraft II the core of the armies will be "movers and shooters". What that means is that micro will mostly be about clever moving of your troops, attacking when and where it will be most effective, while fleeing when the enemy has good counter units, instead of having to go deep into every fight and telling all the soldiers what abilities they should use.
I think this is one of the many things that made Starcraft a superior game to Warcraft III.
However, since we at least know of the return of the High Templar, and with the introduction of the Mothership, it's safe to say that some units won't be able to do much without the direct interaction of the player behind the keyboard. So those that like casters will still have their fun.
Anyhow, I guess this discussion is for another topic. Check this link to read about the "mover and shooter" philosophy.
I think that what most of us that dislike the idea of MBS (or atleast me) fears is the following two things.
1)The game will be all about micro, army managment and harrassment. This is what would happen if original bw had MBS. (Let's face it the economy mangement part of bw is not taxing enough to take up more than 10 % max of a decent players time with MBS.) And most of us simply don't want a game where ALL on your mind is your army. Also please note the ""mindless button smashers"" (Guys with 200+APM) would still rape the slower guys cause they would be able to harass at 5 places instead of two. But it is not the game we want, we want a game that forces us to split attention not only between armies but between armies and ecconomy.
2) They somehow dumb the game down enough so that ppl that _doesn't_ practice 8 hours aday still has a chance to compete at the highest level. This would be terrible because we want sc2 to at the very very least match bw in terms of esports. But no sport ever would be a popular spectator sport if it didn't demand insane saccrifices as well as talent to be considered good at.
Woah, woah, woah, automatic transmission? The reason automatic transmission is so popular is because it takes zero skill to operate. The same reason professional racers have manual transmission. When you make a car for the public, your not trying to encourage innovation and skill, when you make a strategy game you are!
EDIT: the paragraph below was factually wrong, and was corrected.
Professional racers actually use semi-automatic transmission in race cars. They still have a clutch, but they only have to use it for the first gear because they outperform the semi-automatic system at start. When the semi-automatic transmission was introduced, after finally outperforming the pro-level manual control, car racing didn't suddenly become a newbie or less interesting/demanding sport because of it. You could even argue controlling the clutch was a bigger part of racing than single building selection is part of bw.
And give me a break, there is nothing "innovative" about selecting lots of individual buildings fast, whatever combination of hotkeys and mouse movements you happen to be using. It is about as innovative as being a skilled worker in a factory's assembly line from the 1900's. bah.
The "UI" for shifting gears was simplified (paddles on the steering wheel instead of a stick) which now requires less motoric skill; also, skill in clutch control after the 1st gear (no doubt there was mechanical skill at that) is no longer relevant.
The racer's decision when to switch gears is like the gamer's decision what and when to build from the factories. the mechanical details (stick+clutch vs pressing a button on the wheel, or single building selection vs multi building selection) isn't what the competition is supposed to be about.
From "Formula One Car"
Transmission:
Formula One cars use semi-automatic sequential gearboxes with six or seven forward gears and one reverse gear. The driver initiates gear changes using paddles mounted on the back of the steering wheel and electro-hydraulics perform the actual change as well as throttle control. Clutch control is also performed electro-hydraulically except from and to a standstill when the driver must operate the clutch using a lever mounted on the back of the steering wheel. By regulation the cars use rear wheel drive. A modern F1 clutch is a multi-plate carbon design with a diameter of less than four inches (100 mm), weighing less than 2.20 lbs (1 kg) and handling 900 hp (670 kW) or so.
Thats dangerously close to pure nerdism. Chances are alot of the pro's would laugh at that quote,because they play via pure instinct,honed by practice,with a fair amount of talent thrown in. A good analogy would be that you can study and apply all the biomechanics science,nutritional knowledge,steroid technology and tactical training you like to some athlete (say, a footballer, for arguments sake),turn him into a methodical,over-analysing robot. Then along comes some 6'4",350 pound ANIMAL who eats hotdogs and can't even spell (let alone understand the need to apply) science, and DOMINATES the league. He plays on instinct and talent.
Blizzard appear to have included MBS,but have also indicated they're making a game that's playable at a pro level. So,we can assume that if MBS is included,there will be features in the game that balance it out,yeah?
On May 26 2007 02:03 KlaCkoN wrote: I think that what most of us that dislike the idea of MBS (or atleast me) fears is the following two things.
1)The game will be all about micro, army managment and harrassment. This is what would happen if original bw had MBS. (Let's face it the economy mangement part of bw is not taxing enough to take up more than 10 % max of a decent players time with MBS.) And most of us simply don't want a game where ALL on your mind is your army. Also please note the ""mindless button smashers"" (Guys with 200+APM) would still rape the slower guys cause they would be able to harass at 5 places instead of two. But it is not the game we want, we want a game that forces us to split attention not only between armies but between armies and ecconomy.
2) They somehow dumb the game down enough so that ppl that _doesn't_ practice 8 hours aday still has a chance to compete at the highest level. This would be terrible because we want sc2 to at the very very least match bw in terms of esports. But no sport ever would be a popular spectator sport if it didn't demand insane saccrifices as well as talent to be considered good at.
I was thinking about all of this and I think that I have found a game that could answer many peoples questions, help them get out of doubt and most of all - would provide a great practice for the upcoming SC2 both for BW and TFT players. I'm talking about Armies of Exigo here... Why?
BW aspects:
- massive armies - numerous expansions - A LOT of macro (in addition you have 3 resources there which makes things even harder) - very fast game pace - hard counters - no heroes - no creeps
TFT aspects:
- theme (more or less, Fallen are more "zergish" than Undead in TFT but they get some toss aspects aswell - and FvF is played almost exactly like ZvZ in BW) - multiple building selection (and interface in general) - you need more micro in battles than in BW (saving units is important because maybe there are no heroes but every single unit can advance and become a bit stronger) - battles start early on (and there's a lot of harassment options)
So basically BW players could see for themselves how more advanced interfaces work while still having the original gameplay aspect while TFT players could learn to fight without heroes/creeps/items and how to control bigger armies that die fast.
I think I played the demo of AoX, it looked like a pretty good game, but from what I heard it never really formed a community, so I never purchased it. Now there are probably 0 ppl to play multi against...
It's a shame, it had the potential to be an RTS on the same level as bw :/
Woah, woah, woah, automatic transmission? The reason automatic transmission is so popular is because it takes zero skill to operate. The same reason professional racers have manual transmission. When you make a car for the public, your not trying to encourage innovation and skill, when you make a strategy game you are!
EDIT: the paragraph below was factually wrong, and was corrected.
Professional racers actually use semi-automatic transmission in race cars. They still have a clutch, but they only have to use it for the first gear because they outperform the semi-automatic system at start. When the semi-automatic transmission was introduced, after finally outperforming the pro-level manual control, car racing didn't suddenly become a newbie or less interesting/demanding sport because of it. You could even argue controlling the clutch was a bigger part of racing than single building selection is part of bw.
And give me a break, there is nothing "innovative" about selecting lots of individual buildings fast, whatever combination of hotkeys and mouse movements you happen to be using. It is about as innovative as being a skilled worker in a factory's assembly line from the 1900's. bah.
The "UI" for shifting gears was simplified (paddles on the steering wheel instead of a stick) which now requires less motoric skill; also, skill in clutch control after the 1st gear (no doubt there was mechanical skill at that) is no longer relevant.
The racer's decision when to switch gears is like the gamer's decision what and when to build from the factories. the mechanical details (stick+clutch vs pressing a button on the wheel, or single building selection vs multi building selection) isn't what the competition is supposed to be about.
From "Formula One Car"
Transmission:
Formula One cars use semi-automatic sequential gearboxes with six or seven forward gears and one reverse gear. The driver initiates gear changes using paddles mounted on the back of the steering wheel and electro-hydraulics perform the actual change as well as throttle control. Clutch control is also performed electro-hydraulically except from and to a standstill when the driver must operate the clutch using a lever mounted on the back of the steering wheel. By regulation the cars use rear wheel drive. A modern F1 clutch is a multi-plate carbon design with a diameter of less than four inches (100 mm), weighing less than 2.20 lbs (1 kg) and handling 900 hp (670 kW) or so.
You're missing the whole point. I'm not saying automatic transmission and mass selection are exactly the same, but they both simplify complex actions. When you oversimplify a game, it loses a lot of its competitive nature, and because SC is so complex, its the most competitive game around.
"Mechanical details" like having to select each factory by itself or telling workers to mine are what makes the game competitive. If you want a game where everyone has perfect macro and only needs to dance around with their units, thats fine, but I think most players like SC because of how competitive it is.
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?
1. Does it hurt Micro and Macro both... equally? Hard to say.
2. Does it benefit the newb only? Don\\\'t think so.
3. Does it actually make the game more battle and maneuver based? Probably.
4. Would being more battle and maneuver based mean all the players that rely on APM would become much worse players? I seriously doubt it.
5. Would some pro players be hurt by MBS? Probably... but only those that didn\\\'t master every aspect of the game.
6. Does MBS take away from the beauty of the game of SC2? We can\\\'t answer this, because there may be so much more to do... we won\\\'t know till we play. And really play... not just 1 month of alpha testing.
I will say this. Don\\\'t be so sure of why you didn\\\'t enjoy Warcraft 3. The design sounded like it\\\'d be fun for me, but for whatever reason I just couldnt stick with it. It wasn\\\'t as fun as SC. So i won\\\'t take a hard stance on MBS. The situation for SC2 and MBS isn\\\'t clear until the game is played. It could be for the better... it could be for the worse. But I will stand by my distinct preference that sloppy micro, when you are trying to micro, is just a travesty to see.
------
MBS would take away from one large luck factor in SC. Those every so present moments at fastest play games (it wasn\\\'t always fastest in the old days) where you decide to go back to your base to build men during a battle... and then because of that 2 second delay, you lost half of your force due to something that you totally could have prevented if you had watched the battle. Sometimes you are able to avoid these simply due to good scouting and not being surprised... but sometimes you don\\\'t know what\\\'s in the back of that tank push because you don\\\'t have a comstat (toss/zerg) to get past the turrets, tanks, and mines. Well, perhaps you can\\\'t take your eyes off a tank push, but late game that means death. With MBS, you could keep fighting when you knew it was important and not take your eyes off the battle at that point in time.
MBS frees up more hotkeys and will allow for more hotkeying of groups of units... for fancier flanks and attacking more areas at once.
As some have pointed out, for maximum mechnical and dexterity you could actually take away some of the UI features like hotkeying units, etc. There is a balance to be made, for sure. I don\\\'t think anyone would argue that being able to hotkey units is a bad thing... yet in the old days of RTS you couldn\\\'t do it and it required more actions to do the same thing you can do in Starcraft. This hardly makes Starcraft a less skillful game.
MBS would fix something that would make me happy. A pet peeve of mine is rallying production facilities one at a time. it\\\'s fine when you have two gates. When you have 10+ gates it\\\'s more than a little annoying to do them one at a time without hotkeys and just about impossible to have all 10+ of them hotkeyed.
-Realizations-
Realization: After thinking on this more, I\\\'m actually leaning to MBS being a good thing.
Realization2 (slightly off topic, but while we\\\'re on design): Going back to the \\\"fast speed\\\" vs \\\"fastest speed\\\"... gamers will gravitate to fastest, but I think fast speed games typically emphasize early game balance, whereas fastest speed games typically emphasize late game balance. Early game balance being more critical in design so that late game can even be achieved. I hope to see fast speed (or faster) played in the SC2 beta.
Realization 3: i take back what i said in other post a little. Perhaps not all races in SC are micro/macro equal. Terran must be more macro friendly despite Boxer\\\'s micro fame. i say this because (correct me if i\\\'m wrong) there are more terran pros making it to higher levels of tournaments and more of their styles usually revolve around late game macro. And Terran, perhaps, has the easiest chance to defend against early aggressive micro/harrass and even late game harrass... early vs. zerg is probably the trickiest but that\\\'s 1 out of 3 matches (or 1 out of 4 now with Terran\\\'s large presence).
Conclusion?
Blizzard will do what they think is right. They are smart, lucky, and stubborn. I think they\\\'ll get it right.
What you said was quite good. I read all these posts last night and then got in my bed. I couldn't sleep. I just stared at the celling thinking about what we have talked about. I thought about all the starcraft games I've casted. I thought about the games that were fun to cast and the games that weren't. I thought about the games that enlightened my understanding of Starcraft and the ones that confused me. One game was stuck in my mind. WCG 2006 Iloveoov versus white-ra.
White-ra has always been one of my favorite players. He's sneaky and creative. His builds are also brilliant. But i feel he shines more in his creative builds and daring moves than in his ability to follow a linear path to get maxed out. When he faced the mighty iloveoov white-ra played with no fear in his eyes. He wasn't afraid to leave his base. He wasn't afraid to take some risks while the world was watching. He wasn't afraid to keep trying new strategic moves after the first one failed. When i was watching the game i thought iloveoov was losing. But white ra fumbled and made one or two simple mistakes. Even though Iloveoov lost so many scvs he grew faster than his opponent. He knew the song to play and he played it quite well. 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.
From reading this thread several times i am starting to see what my opponents are trying to tell me. I'm going to articulate this through some basic starcraft logic. 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.
I did try playing those notes (the revised MBS method). I like it. It feels good on my hands. And with no PSI limit... hm... this could get insane in the late game. It also seems less prone to patterns (but i don't know that for sure because i haven't started playing the actual game yet.)
Here's some of my thoughts on how we could combine these two features in a cool way.
a) Let the game music go with the the macroing patterns. I'm talking about the actual game music, not the notes that you play on the keyboard. Let it get more dramatic as the game picks up (more and more units). Maybe the music could change in battles too. And give the races tons of songs to play along with.
b) Make the tech tree a little bit different from starcrafts original one. I tend to make all of the same type of units at once: 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d. Then I'll make another wave with a different variation: 4z5z6z7z8z9t0t. Now i have a healthy mix of units. Maybe after i do 4z5z6z7z8z9t0t again I'll more those templars into an archon (because they have less energy). 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. This would allow for more openings for the player. The hard part would be balancing all those units.
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.
On May 25 2007 21:28 Lx_Rogue wrote: Woah, woah, woah, automatic transmission? The reason automatic transmission is so popular is because it takes zero skill to operate. The same reason professional racers have manual transmission. When you make a car for the public, your not trying to encourage innovation and skill, when you make a strategy game you are!
racers use manual transmission because it's more efficient
likewise, players are still going to individually select their buildings at times for the exact same reason. anyone that thinks that MBS is going to completely destroy all sense of macro needs to play warcraft 3 for FIVE MINUTES, then they'll understand that the system is very poor at selecting the proper buildings when macroing a group of them. an empty barracks will often get skipped for one that has a unit in the queue, and it makes no effort to pick the best building based on training time left. pros will probably end up macroing their barracks in small clusters, expecting the game the game to figure out how to properly distribute 600 minerals across 12 gateways is pretty silly...it's bound to screw up somewhere
racers use manual transmission because it's more efficient
likewise, players are still going to individually select their buildings at times for the exact same reason. anyone that thinks that MBS is going to completely destroy all sense of macro needs to play warcraft 3 for FIVE MINUTES, then they'll understand that the system is very poor at selecting the proper buildings when macroing a group of them. an empty barracks will often get skipped for one that has a unit in the queue, and it makes no effort to pick the best building based on training time left. pros will probably end up macroing their barracks in small clusters, expecting the game the game to figure out how to properly distribute 600 minerals across 12 gateways is pretty silly...it's bound to screw up somewhere
I disagree. It is very simple to add units into the production queue of multiple buildings in an optimal manner and I'm positively certain the computer would do it better than you or nada can. Suppose that pressing the hotkey for your unit of choice with your building group would add only 1 unit total (not 1 per building). Then all the program would have to do is queue it up in the building that has the least total production time left in its queue(*). For idle buildings this quantity would be zero, so they would always be selected first. Easy. It just can't get any better than this. If you want to build specific units in specific physical locations, use more than 1 building group. It makes alot of sense, for rallying purposes as well. A common example from bw would be the gates on your first main vs. the gates on your second main.
* - It gave me an idea, it would be cool if when you selected multiple buildings it would write the amount of delay somewhere, so you will know whether what you're putting into the queues starts right away, or how long is the delay going to be. This way you would also know immediately if there are idle buildings, because that would cause this number to be zero; you could use it to add units until you see the number increase from zero, to ensure all of your buildings are busy, and if it says 5 seconds you will know at least 1 building will be idle again within 5 seconds. Very cool.
1. Have lots of newb friendly options like outocasting, multibple buildings/army selections, ai controlled unit formations etc. This makes it easier for new people to play but makes the game less competetive.
2. have none of that so the player has to learn the hard way but in the end have a lot of control over the game. better for differing good players from rest.
IMO both are vitaly important, 1 builds a good player base as it is easy to learn while 2 gives more room for hardcore players. So why not make an option to chose between what kind of control level you want to set the game at.
For example in a ladder of 0 to 1000 points, 0-200 ratings would play in "noob" mode, 201-600 in intermediate mode, and 600+ in hardcore mode. or some other variation of such setup.
On May 25 2007 13:03 Tal wrote: Wow...great post from Tasteless....I finally can actually understand the ''keep the interface shit'' school of thought. Good to see it written so passionately, and now I finally feel some sympathy for everyone seeing Starcraft 2 as a step in the wrong direction (as the interface will obviously be changed from the SC one). You've finally conveyed why SC is seen as so special in those ways.
But...I'm still with radagast et al....I don't want to play the starcraft that Tasteless and you guys love. I have no desire to develop those mechanical skills on a computer game- I'd rather devote that time to playing guitar, and play computer games with more user friendly interfaces. Like Radagast I want to play a strategy game in real time, with the oppurtunity to act simultaneously to and decieve my opponent- engage in a battle of wills. The whole total focus of mechanical skills + brain just doesn't appeal to me- I'd rather just need 100apm to compete at top level, even if I know that won't happen. And to be honest, most gamers I talk to are on the same side. Its too much to have to devote so much time to mastering an interface- even for your favourite game. I've played games all my life, and I agree SC is the best RTS ever made. But with improvements to interface, it could be so much better by my (and other gamers standards). I don't want the same intense experience- I want a different one- focussed on planning and thinking (under pressure), instead of executing multiple commands under pressure of interface (and trying to think too). Hopefully starcraft 2 will have it.
Just one question though- if they made starcraft 2 with the option to either play with a great super user-friendly interface (no unit select limit, select multiple buildings, sophisticated hot key system, even autobuild/ orders for troops like retreat on sighting enemy etc) or to play with a SC1 replica interface, would many of you really choose to play on the server with the old style interface? I guess tasteless would (and fair play to him), but what about the rest of you?
If there was autobuild and crazy automated troop orders I'd most likely either play on the old interface server if it was what became popular or possibly not play at all.
If it "only" had multiple building/unlimited unit select then I'd have to see how it was implemented, I have faith in blizzard until I see otherwise, when it comes to this.
Reading through thread so I guess I'll edit whatever I want to answer to into this post.
EDIT:
I'm pretty sure there'll be a Psi limit, they haven't said anything to the contrary. No limit on how many units you can select tho.
On May 25 2007 23:09 RyanTuosto wrote: In my opinion, too find what tasteless is looking for, you need to add more abilities to individual units to spice up the micro part of the game play.
There are plenty of things the developers could do, especially with the help of TL, to add "magic" or "energy" to more units, abilities that recharge over time, or require energy or magic, then add hotkeys to the abilities and voila.
i don't even know what i want any more man! i just want to play a game that's starcraft but improved in all senses. I'm just thinking outloud (uh or quietly on a fourm i guess). I don't have a special mold or anything that i want starcraft 2 to fit into like a hand in a glove. I know it wont have everything i expect or want, i also know it wont have things that i've even imagined yet.. it better! The bigger point i was trying to get at was to defend the hotkey system in the original starcraft. And that it wasn't a bad thing to begin with. It was an incredible way to play an RTS. I've gotten a lot of good responses.
I just want people to understand that while my ancestors were french irish and austrian making me a caucasian on the outside... my heart still beats with korean blood on the inside.
Thats dangerously close to pure nerdism. Chances are alot of the pro's would laugh at that quote,because they play via pure instinct,honed by practice,with a fair amount of talent thrown in. A good analogy would be that you can study and apply all the biomechanics science,nutritional knowledge,steroid technology and tactical training you like to some athlete (say, a footballer, for arguments sake),turn him into a methodical,over-analysing robot. Then along comes some 6'4",350 pound ANIMAL who eats hotdogs and can't even spell (let alone understand the need to apply) science, and DOMINATES the league. He plays on instinct and talent.
Blizzard appear to have included MBS,but have also indicated they're making a game that's playable at a pro level. So,we can assume that if MBS is included,there will be features in the game that balance it out,yeah?
This is actually incorrect. Many coaches on starcraft pro teams make sure their players can type builds exactly as tasteless typed it out. In the mind of the coaches (as well as most players), its just as important that your fingers know your build as your mind.
The range from pro to newb will always be the same, granted there is the same amount of people playing.. millions in blizzard's case. What I think most people here are missing is that the huge divide between newb players and pro players is because the SC game is so balanced and so popular and has been played to hell and back again. It is through this process of intense hours, months, and years of playing that pro tactics and strategies develope to utilize the gameplay to its utmost maximum potential. Games that arn't popular and have smaller population don't grow to this level, because it doesn't get played as much. Competition is dependant on the population that plays it. The more people there are, the more chances of people figuring out new/better strategies and tactics.
If Starcraft were to only be played by 10 competitive players, do you think it'd still have all the strategies/tactics today? Do you think that the micro and macro portions of the game would be scrutinized at such a high level? Do you think all these factors would be the same as opposed to 1000 competitive players.. 10,000? What makes a game competitive is the game being so freaking fun, addictive, and balanced that it attracts millions of players.. in which case it gets played to hell and back again.. and you get what happened to Starcraft.
MBS does nothing to lower the competitive playing field, focus goes elsewhere on the battlefield.. it doesn't dissappear. I think I explained why it wouldn't ruin competition.. this factor is unrelated to it. It might be more newb friendly, but that just attracts a larger audience and increases competition.
Now that I explained that, lets talk about.. whether it gives newbs an advantage. I'm going to be short, it does not give them an advantage. A pro player always wins against a newb. Newbs don't account for scouting, they don't account for micro, they don't understand flanking, they don't understand counters, they don't understand econ management, they don't understand when to push or when to pull, they don't understand adaptation, and they don't understand a ton of small and big things that make it really impossible for them to win against a pro. How does allowing MBS change any of that, except for making their experience a little less frustrating? Why should the game come down to where a few less clicks jeopordizes everything that it now stands for, that is competition? Why does streamling the building/training process have to = less skill. Manualy selecting individual buildings doesn't mean skill, it purely is just more monotonous work. It isn't like recourse management, and manualy placing buildings.
Should a Student Bob be graded higher for manually typing in every letter of his research website addresses into his source page as opposed to Student John who copy pasted the addresses into his source page? Of course not, the student who wrote a better paper gets a higher grade. The same is true for Starcraft, the better player wins the game. Individual building selection versus multiple building selection.. is not what Starcraft is about. Because we've played it so many damn times, and so many of us did.. that we've lost track of what made Starcraft 1 of the best/competitive games ever. We've forgotten that Starcraft too was once a new, reovutionary, and innovative game. Things like MBS is just furthering the evolution of the game. It cuts out unneccessary 'manual address typing' that doesn't do anything for the game in the first place.
My prediction is they'll implement multiple building selection but on the other hand introduce another (new) task that requires speed and "pace" to execute, hard enough to only be performed properly by top gamers.
That way either both sides will be happy, or neither of them.
On May 27 2007 01:28 Doctorasul wrote: My prediction is they'll implement multiple building selection but on the other hand introduce another (new) task that requires speed and "pace" to execute, hard enough to only be performed properly by top gamers.
That way either both sides will be happy, or neither of them.
The new warp-in and phase prism strategies,will pretty much wipe out any hole left by MBS. Imagine the strats that will develop once the pro's have had their hands on SC2 for a few months.
I was thinking about all of this and I think that I have found a game that could answer many peoples questions, help them get out of doubt and most of all - would provide a great practice for the upcoming SC2 both for BW and TFT players. I'm talking about Armies of Exigo here... Why?
BW aspects:
- massive armies - numerous expansions - A LOT of macro (in addition you have 3 resources there which makes things even harder) - very fast game pace - hard counters - no heroes - no creeps
TFT aspects:
- theme (more or less, Fallen are more "zergish" than Undead in TFT but they get some toss aspects aswell - and FvF is played almost exactly like ZvZ in BW) - multiple building selection (and interface in general) - you need more micro in battles than in BW (saving units is important because maybe there are no heroes but every single unit can advance and become a bit stronger) - battles start early on (and there's a lot of harassment options)
So basically BW players could see for themselves how more advanced interfaces work while still having the original gameplay aspect while TFT players could learn to fight without heroes/creeps/items and how to control bigger armies that die fast.
Just a thought
Problem beeing that AoX never took off and always remained very unpopular. Just like every other RTS with MBS (But that had some other harder task to take the time building selection didn't) I posted my fear that that will happen to sc2 as well when it as the 312352345x game tries to implement this feature a couple of pages back I think. (The only only exeption here is wc3 but thing is wc3 didn't replace the manual building micro with something else, instead it embraced the fact that armies became the only focus of attention and thus created a very different and very succesfull typ of game)
AoX never took off mostly because of the supply/demand of RTS games.
The casual gamers don't want intense demanding RTS games like AoX, and they probably bought the LOTR RTS that was released a month later or so.
A large chunk hardcore players are busy with bw, wc3 and don't even try looking at new games. AoX was shipped a month or two before Dawn of War. It never really got a chance to start with, no matter how good it could be.
I think it would get a much fairer chance of taking off if just 2 things would be done with it:
1. Proper advertising (as a matter of fact, it wasn't advertised at all and if it was it was not sufficient). 2. Proper support (screw you EA and GameSpy!!!!).
I was thinking about all of this and I think that I have found a game that could answer many peoples questions, help them get out of doubt and most of all - would provide a great practice for the upcoming SC2 both for BW and TFT players. I'm talking about Armies of Exigo here... Why?
BW aspects:
- massive armies - numerous expansions - A LOT of macro (in addition you have 3 resources there which makes things even harder) - very fast game pace - hard counters - no heroes - no creeps
TFT aspects:
- theme (more or less, Fallen are more "zergish" than Undead in TFT but they get some toss aspects aswell - and FvF is played almost exactly like ZvZ in BW) - multiple building selection (and interface in general) - you need more micro in battles than in BW (saving units is important because maybe there are no heroes but every single unit can advance and become a bit stronger) - battles start early on (and there's a lot of harassment options)
So basically BW players could see for themselves how more advanced interfaces work while still having the original gameplay aspect while TFT players could learn to fight without heroes/creeps/items and how to control bigger armies that die fast.
Just a thought
Problem beeing that AoX never took off and always remained very unpopular. Just like every other RTS with MBS (But that had some other harder task to take the time building selection didn't) I posted my fear that that will happen to sc2 as well when it as the 312352345x game tries to implement this feature a couple of pages back I think. (The only only exeption here is wc3 but thing is wc3 didn't replace the manual building micro with something else, instead it embraced the fact that armies became the only focus of attention and thus created a very different and very succesfull typ of game)
Lol, you seriously think AoX failed because of MBS.. After all the posts for and against it.. you'll say something like that. AoX failed, because it was a borring game, that was only a clone of WC3, WC3 being a better game anyways. Why play a clone when the original thing is better? AoX had crappy multiplayer support and a crappy campaign.. NOTHING to do with MBS. If you're going to say something so offbase like that.. you can just as well say that "If Starcraft or any RTS game never had a stupid map editor, people wouldn't be so destracted to play stupid custom games and competition would be better and more people would play" which is another false statement.
Lol, you seriously think AoX failed because of MBS.. After all the posts for and against it.. you'll say something like that. AoX failed, because it was a borring game, that was only a clone of WC3, WC3 being a better game anyways. Why play a clone when the original thing is better? AoX had crappy multiplayer support and a crappy campaign.. NOTHING to do with MBS. If you're going to say something so offbase like that.. you can just as well say that "If Starcraft or any RTS game never had a stupid map editor, people wouldn't be so destracted to play stupid custom games and competition would be better and more people would play" which is another false statement.
No exactely directely because of MBS, but indirectly. If you include MBS you need to implement something that is as time consuming for the player as individually selecting buildings. In AoX (apparantly) as well as all the Age of xxx games this something was a pretty complex macro managment system, including but not limited to more than 2 types of resources.
This complexity makes the game hard on "causual" gamers and no newbies means no pros means (in a year or 2) dead game.
Starcraft is EASY, hell as a newbie all you have to worry about is clicking those buildings. No need to think reason or learn. Of course the wonderful thing about starcraft is that there is still an almost unlimited amount of game knowledge under the surface, if you decide to become something more than a newbie that is. This simple fact that sc is so very simple to start playing has contributed a LOT to its success imho.
Wc3 on the same take is also easy. Wc3 didn't replace the lack of macro introduced by MBS with a complicated resource managment system. It was simply a game that focused soley on your army heroes etc. And thus the game is easy on a newbie, all you have to worry about is keeping your hero alive. Of course the micro you do has unlimited potential, which makes the game very competetive but a newbie does not need to worry about that. Warcraft 3 is also insanly popular.
The games that does not want the 100% focus on micro that wc3 has becomes way more complex when you add MBS to the equation. If you are new to say any age of xxx game you do not only have to worry about building some troops to survive early game, often you have to tech a bit to even be able to build troops, you also have to get 43t5345 types of resources to build those soldiers and very often you even have to do some pretty difficult micro to get those resources in the first place. (Hunting). etc etc etc. The complexity makes the game competive yes, and fun for those who master it yes, but it has, at least up to today made the game unpopular with the masses past the first few 1000s that buy it due to cool graphics and comercials.
This at least is how I view it, I may have understood things wrong and in a way I hope I have but ultimatly all I want is for sc2 to be both fun, and POPULAR. (probably the only reason I still play bw is due to the progaming scence....)
Lol, you seriously think AoX failed because of MBS.. After all the posts for and against it.. you'll say something like that. AoX failed, because it was a borring game, that was only a clone of WC3, WC3 being a better game anyways. Why play a clone when the original thing is better? AoX had crappy multiplayer support and a crappy campaign.. NOTHING to do with MBS. If you're going to say something so offbase like that.. you can just as well say that "If Starcraft or any RTS game never had a stupid map editor, people wouldn't be so destracted to play stupid custom games and competition would be better and more people would play" which is another false statement.
No exactely directely because of MBS, but indirectly. If you include MBS you need to implement something that is as time consuming for the player as individually selecting buildings. In AoX (apparantly) as well as all the Age of xxx games this something was a pretty complex macro managment system, including but not limited to more than 2 types of resources.
This complexity makes the game hard on "causual" gamers and no newbies means no pros means (in a year or 2) dead game.
Starcraft is EASY, hell as a newbie all you have to worry about is clicking those buildings. No need to think reason or learn. Of course the wonderful thing about starcraft is that there is still an almost unlimited amount of game knowledge under the surface, if you decide to become something more than a newbie that is. This simple fact that sc is so very simple to start playing has contributed a LOT to its success imho.
Wc3 on the same take is also easy. Wc3 didn't replace the lack of macro introduced by MBS with a complicated resource managment system. It was simply a game that focused soley on your army heroes etc. And thus the game is easy on a newbie, all you have to worry about is keeping your hero alive. Of course the micro you do has unlimited potential, which makes the game very competetive but a newbie does not need to worry about that. Warcraft 3 is also insanly popular.
The games that does not want the 100% focus on micro that wc3 has becomes way more complex when you add MBS to the equation. If you are new to say any age of xxx game you do not only have to worry about building some troops to survive early game, often you have to tech a bit to even be able to build troops, you also have to get 43t5345 types of resources to build those soldiers and very often you even have to do some pretty difficult micro to get those resources in the first place. (Hunting). etc etc etc. The complexity makes the game competive yes, and fun for those who master it yes, but it has, at least up to today made the game unpopular with the masses past the first few 1000s that buy it due to cool graphics and comercials.
This at least is how I view it, I may have understood things wrong and in a way I hope I have but ultimatly all I want is for sc2 to be both fun, and POPULAR. (probably the only reason I still play bw is due to the progaming scence....)
I posted this earlier, but I think everyone missed it. This is a reply to people saying that MBS levels the competitive playing field, which I say it does not... among other things.
The range from pro to newb will always be the same, granted there is the same amount of people playing.. millions in blizzard's case. What I think most people here are missing is that the huge divide between newb players and pro players is because the SC game is so balanced and so popular and has been played to hell and back again. It is through this process of intense hours, months, and years of playing that pro tactics and strategies develope to utilize the gameplay to its utmost maximum potential. Games that arn't popular and have smaller population don't grow to this level, because it doesn't get played as much. Competition is dependant on the population that plays it. The more people there are, the more chances of people figuring out new/better strategies and tactics.
If Starcraft were to only be played by 10 competitive players, do you think it'd still have all the strategies/tactics today? Do you think that the micro and macro portions of the game would be scrutinized at such a high level? Do you think all these factors would be the same as opposed to 1000 competitive players.. 10,000? What makes a game competitive is the game being so freaking fun, addictive, and balanced that it attracts millions of players.. in which case it gets played to hell and back again.. and you get what happened to Starcraft.
MBS does nothing to lower the competitive playing field, focus goes elsewhere on the battlefield.. it doesn't dissappear. I think I explained why it wouldn't ruin competition.. this factor is unrelated to it. It might be more newb friendly, but that just attracts a larger audience and increases competition.
Now that I explained that, lets talk about.. whether it gives newbs an advantage. I'm going to be short, it does not give them an advantage. A pro player always wins against a newb. Newbs don't account for scouting, they don't account for micro, they don't understand flanking, they don't understand counters, they don't understand econ management, they don't understand when to push or when to pull, they don't understand adaptation, and they don't understand a ton of small and big things that make it really impossible for them to win against a pro. How does allowing MBS change any of that, except for making their experience a little less frustrating? Why should the game come down to where a few less clicks jeopordizes everything that it now stands for, that is competition? Why does streamling the building/training process have to = less skill. Manualy selecting individual buildings doesn't mean skill, it purely is just more monotonous work. It isn't like recourse management, and manualy placing buildings.
Should a Student Bob be graded higher for manually typing in every letter of his research website addresses into his source page as opposed to Student John who copy pasted the addresses into his source page? Of course not, the student who wrote a better paper gets a higher grade. The same is true for Starcraft, the better player wins the game. Individual building selection versus multiple building selection.. is not what Starcraft is about. Because we've played it so many damn times, and so many of us did.. that we've lost track of what made Starcraft 1 of the best/competitive games ever. We've forgotten that Starcraft too was once a new, reovutionary, and innovative game. Things like MBS is just furthering the evolution of the game. It cuts out unneccessary 'manual address typing' that doesn't do anything for the game in the first place.
I don't know if the was directed to me =p you quoted me but your post has nothing to do with what I wrote, I didn't say that a more complex macro game including MBS makes for a less competetive game, on the contrary I said that it makes the game very competetive. What I did say was that up until know such complex games has always been very unpopular. Opposite to BW and TFT which are although very different both very very easy to play and understand at newb level. Games with very complex macro are not. Which is why I think, they have always had very small comunities.
I think you're absolutely insane if you think that MBS is what killed AoX, directly or indirectly.
It doesn't make a 'newb' that good at all. There's sooooo many other factors in a game that someone can be better at.
I honestly can't believe you think like that >_< It's just so illogical and irrational to think that it affects the game THAT much... to say that it newbifies the game so much that people can't be 'pros'...
Think about how easy chess or checkers is to play... there's pros in that. There's pros in ANYTHING that can be played competitvely. Having MBS doesn't kill that, ever. In any way shape or form.
On May 27 2007 10:13 KlaCkoN wrote: I don't know if the was directed to me =p you quoted me but your post has nothing to do with what I wrote, I didn't say that a more complex macro game including MBS makes for a less competetive game, on the contrary I said that it makes the game very competetive. What I did say was that up until know such complex games has always been very unpopular. Opposite to BW and TFT which are although very different both very very easy to play and understand at newb level. Games with very complex macro are not. Which is why I think, they have always had very small comunities.
It was more about for opposers of MBS in general, it does touch light on what you were saying. It explains how MBS is such a tiny part of RTS gameplay and does nothing else but streamlines processes. I'm just surprised you think MBS has anything to do with any game failing.
Here is an example.. Supreme Commander (Starcraft 2 will not even be close to the macro level of this game, nor does it need to be) was a block buster hit. I didn't like the game personally because it was too slow, no map editor, so-so multiplayer service, and such.. MBS however is hardly a reason.
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?
1. Does it hurt Micro and Macro both... equally? Hard to say.
2. Does it benefit the newb only? Don\\\'t think so.
3. Does it actually make the game more battle and maneuver based? Probably.
4. Would being more battle and maneuver based mean all the players that rely on APM would become much worse players? I seriously doubt it.
5. Would some pro players be hurt by MBS? Probably... but only those that didn\\\'t master every aspect of the game.
6. Does MBS take away from the beauty of the game of SC2? We can\\\'t answer this, because there may be so much more to do... we won\\\'t know till we play. And really play... not just 1 month of alpha testing.
I will say this. Don\\\'t be so sure of why you didn\\\'t enjoy Warcraft 3. The design sounded like it\\\'d be fun for me, but for whatever reason I just couldnt stick with it. It wasn\\\'t as fun as SC. So i won\\\'t take a hard stance on MBS. The situation for SC2 and MBS isn\\\'t clear until the game is played. It could be for the better... it could be for the worse. But I will stand by my distinct preference that sloppy micro, when you are trying to micro, is just a travesty to see.
------
MBS would take away from one large luck factor in SC. Those every so present moments at fastest play games (it wasn\\\'t always fastest in the old days) where you decide to go back to your base to build men during a battle... and then because of that 2 second delay, you lost half of your force due to something that you totally could have prevented if you had watched the battle. Sometimes you are able to avoid these simply due to good scouting and not being surprised... but sometimes you don\\\'t know what\\\'s in the back of that tank push because you don\\\'t have a comstat (toss/zerg) to get past the turrets, tanks, and mines. Well, perhaps you can\\\'t take your eyes off a tank push, but late game that means death. With MBS, you could keep fighting when you knew it was important and not take your eyes off the battle at that point in time.
MBS frees up more hotkeys and will allow for more hotkeying of groups of units... for fancier flanks and attacking more areas at once.
As some have pointed out, for maximum mechnical and dexterity you could actually take away some of the UI features like hotkeying units, etc. There is a balance to be made, for sure. I don\\\'t think anyone would argue that being able to hotkey units is a bad thing... yet in the old days of RTS you couldn\\\'t do it and it required more actions to do the same thing you can do in Starcraft. This hardly makes Starcraft a less skillful game.
MBS would fix something that would make me happy. A pet peeve of mine is rallying production facilities one at a time. it\\\'s fine when you have two gates. When you have 10+ gates it\\\'s more than a little annoying to do them one at a time without hotkeys and just about impossible to have all 10+ of them hotkeyed.
-Realizations-
Realization: After thinking on this more, I\\\'m actually leaning to MBS being a good thing.
Realization2 (slightly off topic, but while we\\\'re on design): Going back to the \\\"fast speed\\\" vs \\\"fastest speed\\\"... gamers will gravitate to fastest, but I think fast speed games typically emphasize early game balance, whereas fastest speed games typically emphasize late game balance. Early game balance being more critical in design so that late game can even be achieved. I hope to see fast speed (or faster) played in the SC2 beta.
Realization 3: i take back what i said in other post a little. Perhaps not all races in SC are micro/macro equal. Terran must be more macro friendly despite Boxer\\\'s micro fame. i say this because (correct me if i\\\'m wrong) there are more terran pros making it to higher levels of tournaments and more of their styles usually revolve around late game macro. And Terran, perhaps, has the easiest chance to defend against early aggressive micro/harrass and even late game harrass... early vs. zerg is probably the trickiest but that\\\'s 1 out of 3 matches (or 1 out of 4 now with Terran\\\'s large presence).
Conclusion?
Blizzard will do what they think is right. They are smart, lucky, and stubborn. I think they\\\'ll get it right.
What you said was quite good. I read all these posts last night and then got in my bed. I couldn't sleep. I just stared at the celling thinking about what we have talked about. I thought about all the starcraft games I've casted. I thought about the games that were fun to cast and the games that weren't. I thought about the games that enlightened my understanding of Starcraft and the ones that confused me. One game was stuck in my mind. WCG 2006 Iloveoov versus white-ra.
White-ra has always been one of my favorite players. He's sneaky and creative. His builds are also brilliant. But i feel he shines more in his creative builds and daring moves than in his ability to follow a linear path to get maxed out. When he faced the mighty iloveoov white-ra played with no fear in his eyes. He wasn't afraid to leave his base. He wasn't afraid to take some risks while the world was watching. He wasn't afraid to keep trying new strategic moves after the first one failed. When i was watching the game i thought iloveoov was losing. But white ra fumbled and made one or two simple mistakes. Even though Iloveoov lost so many scvs he grew faster than his opponent. He knew the song to play and he played it quite well. 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.
From reading this thread several times i am starting to see what my opponents are trying to tell me. I'm going to articulate this through some basic starcraft logic. 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.
I did try playing those notes (the revised MBS method). I like it. It feels good on my hands. And with no PSI limit... hm... this could get insane in the late game. It also seems less prone to patterns (but i don't know that for sure because i haven't started playing the actual game yet.)
Here's some of my thoughts on how we could combine these two features in a cool way.
a) Let the game music go with the the macroing patterns. I'm talking about the actual game music, not the notes that you play on the keyboard. Let it get more dramatic as the game picks up (more and more units). Maybe the music could change in battles too. And give the races tons of songs to play along with.
b) Make the tech tree a little bit different from starcrafts original one. I tend to make all of the same type of units at once: 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d. Then I'll make another wave with a different variation: 4z5z6z7z8z9t0t. Now i have a healthy mix of units. Maybe after i do 4z5z6z7z8z9t0t again I'll more those templars into an archon (because they have less energy). 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. This would allow for more openings for the player. The hard part would be balancing all those units.
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.
My respect for you just skyrocketed :=)
a) Advanced ingame music would indeed be an awesome feature.
b) Blizzard have stated that they want to give the players an opportunity to choose different build orders instead of being locked into a single "supreme" version.
"Pardo highlighted a number of bullet points for design goals in the new game, mainly speed, saying the longest a StarCraft 2 match should take is around 20 minutes. Blizzard is emphasizing each races significantly different play styles, though they won't yet reveal how the Terran and Zerg can hope to counter the impressively powerful abilities of the Protoss' Mothership. Specific attention was paid to low-level tech tree abilities, as Pardo explained Blizzard has taken steps to expand the available options and make early-game mechanics more varied." // http://pc.ign.com/articles/790/790186p1.html
The last part of this paragraph seems to hint so anyhow.
c) I havn't played Starcraft seriously for years but I know that in Warcraft 3 you have to send away 3 workers to gold, 1 to wood and 1 to build a building and then tell your town hall to build another worked within a few sec. If you do any mistake during those first few minutes you're completly screwed when the enemy rush comes. Making the start itself a bit less intensive I suppose could be good, would have to be carefully balanced though because well played rushes have to be viable.
d) From what I've understood they want to make each unit in Starcraft 2 very important. They don't want any units like the Dark Archon that are only used in very few games.
e) I think it would be nice with options for minerals. Maybe when you host a game you can choose between mineral poor, mineral average, mineral rich and mineral unlimited? I think a somewhat low amount is better for the aggresive style that is better for ladder and e-sport play.
On May 27 2007 11:25 SoleSteeler wrote: I think you're absolutely insane if you think that MBS is what killed AoX, directly or indirectly.
It doesn't make a 'newb' that good at all. There's sooooo many other factors in a game that someone can be better at.
I honestly can't believe you think like that >_< It's just so illogical and irrational to think that it affects the game THAT much... to say that it newbifies the game so much that people can't be 'pros'...
Think about how easy chess or checkers is to play... there's pros in that. There's pros in ANYTHING that can be played competitvely. Having MBS doesn't kill that, ever. In any way shape or form.
please... I realize my english isn't exactely good on the contrary it has been pretty awful these posts, but if you don't understand what I am typing please ask me to clarify rather than asume things I definetly didn't write.
I said nothing implying the fact that AoX failed because MBS made the game so easy that people couldn't be pros. I said that games that want to be macro focused with MBS has to make the macro rather complicated. And that complexity turns newbs away from the game after the first year or so. Which means that the game dies online after say 2-3 years. At least this is how it has been historically whenever a complex macro RTS has been launched.
As for Surpreme commander beeing a huge hit. If it has an online community of 500 000+ (small figure...) 2 years after it's release then i shall gladly admit I was wrong. (And smile when doing so because that would make me happy)
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?
1. Does it hurt Micro and Macro both... equally? Hard to say.
2. Does it benefit the newb only? Don\\\'t think so.
3. Does it actually make the game more battle and maneuver based? Probably.
4. Would being more battle and maneuver based mean all the players that rely on APM would become much worse players? I seriously doubt it.
5. Would some pro players be hurt by MBS? Probably... but only those that didn\\\'t master every aspect of the game.
6. Does MBS take away from the beauty of the game of SC2? We can\\\'t answer this, because there may be so much more to do... we won\\\'t know till we play. And really play... not just 1 month of alpha testing.
I will say this. Don\\\'t be so sure of why you didn\\\'t enjoy Warcraft 3. The design sounded like it\\\'d be fun for me, but for whatever reason I just couldnt stick with it. It wasn\\\'t as fun as SC. So i won\\\'t take a hard stance on MBS. The situation for SC2 and MBS isn\\\'t clear until the game is played. It could be for the better... it could be for the worse. But I will stand by my distinct preference that sloppy micro, when you are trying to micro, is just a travesty to see.
------
MBS would take away from one large luck factor in SC. Those every so present moments at fastest play games (it wasn\\\'t always fastest in the old days) where you decide to go back to your base to build men during a battle... and then because of that 2 second delay, you lost half of your force due to something that you totally could have prevented if you had watched the battle. Sometimes you are able to avoid these simply due to good scouting and not being surprised... but sometimes you don\\\'t know what\\\'s in the back of that tank push because you don\\\'t have a comstat (toss/zerg) to get past the turrets, tanks, and mines. Well, perhaps you can\\\'t take your eyes off a tank push, but late game that means death. With MBS, you could keep fighting when you knew it was important and not take your eyes off the battle at that point in time.
MBS frees up more hotkeys and will allow for more hotkeying of groups of units... for fancier flanks and attacking more areas at once.
As some have pointed out, for maximum mechnical and dexterity you could actually take away some of the UI features like hotkeying units, etc. There is a balance to be made, for sure. I don\\\'t think anyone would argue that being able to hotkey units is a bad thing... yet in the old days of RTS you couldn\\\'t do it and it required more actions to do the same thing you can do in Starcraft. This hardly makes Starcraft a less skillful game.
MBS would fix something that would make me happy. A pet peeve of mine is rallying production facilities one at a time. it\\\'s fine when you have two gates. When you have 10+ gates it\\\'s more than a little annoying to do them one at a time without hotkeys and just about impossible to have all 10+ of them hotkeyed.
-Realizations-
Realization: After thinking on this more, I\\\'m actually leaning to MBS being a good thing.
Realization2 (slightly off topic, but while we\\\'re on design): Going back to the \\\"fast speed\\\" vs \\\"fastest speed\\\"... gamers will gravitate to fastest, but I think fast speed games typically emphasize early game balance, whereas fastest speed games typically emphasize late game balance. Early game balance being more critical in design so that late game can even be achieved. I hope to see fast speed (or faster) played in the SC2 beta.
Realization 3: i take back what i said in other post a little. Perhaps not all races in SC are micro/macro equal. Terran must be more macro friendly despite Boxer\\\'s micro fame. i say this because (correct me if i\\\'m wrong) there are more terran pros making it to higher levels of tournaments and more of their styles usually revolve around late game macro. And Terran, perhaps, has the easiest chance to defend against early aggressive micro/harrass and even late game harrass... early vs. zerg is probably the trickiest but that\\\'s 1 out of 3 matches (or 1 out of 4 now with Terran\\\'s large presence).
Conclusion?
Blizzard will do what they think is right. They are smart, lucky, and stubborn. I think they\\\'ll get it right.
What you said was quite good. I read all these posts last night and then got in my bed. I couldn't sleep. I just stared at the celling thinking about what we have talked about. I thought about all the starcraft games I've casted. I thought about the games that were fun to cast and the games that weren't. I thought about the games that enlightened my understanding of Starcraft and the ones that confused me. One game was stuck in my mind. WCG 2006 Iloveoov versus white-ra.
White-ra has always been one of my favorite players. He's sneaky and creative. His builds are also brilliant. But i feel he shines more in his creative builds and daring moves than in his ability to follow a linear path to get maxed out. When he faced the mighty iloveoov white-ra played with no fear in his eyes. He wasn't afraid to leave his base. He wasn't afraid to take some risks while the world was watching. He wasn't afraid to keep trying new strategic moves after the first one failed. When i was watching the game i thought iloveoov was losing. But white ra fumbled and made one or two simple mistakes. Even though Iloveoov lost so many scvs he grew faster than his opponent. He knew the song to play and he played it quite well. 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.
From reading this thread several times i am starting to see what my opponents are trying to tell me. I'm going to articulate this through some basic starcraft logic. 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.
I did try playing those notes (the revised MBS method). I like it. It feels good on my hands. And with no PSI limit... hm... this could get insane in the late game. It also seems less prone to patterns (but i don't know that for sure because i haven't started playing the actual game yet.)
Here's some of my thoughts on how we could combine these two features in a cool way.
a) Let the game music go with the the macroing patterns. I'm talking about the actual game music, not the notes that you play on the keyboard. Let it get more dramatic as the game picks up (more and more units). Maybe the music could change in battles too. And give the races tons of songs to play along with.
b) Make the tech tree a little bit different from starcrafts original one. I tend to make all of the same type of units at once: 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d. Then I'll make another wave with a different variation: 4z5z6z7z8z9t0t. Now i have a healthy mix of units. Maybe after i do 4z5z6z7z8z9t0t again I'll more those templars into an archon (because they have less energy). 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. This would allow for more openings for the player. The hard part would be balancing all those units.
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.
My respect for you just skyrocketed :=)
a) Advanced ingame music would indeed be an awesome feature.
b) Blizzard have stated that they want to give the players an opportunity to choose different build orders instead of being locked into a single "supreme" version.
"Pardo highlighted a number of bullet points for design goals in the new game, mainly speed, saying the longest a StarCraft 2 match should take is around 20 minutes. Blizzard is emphasizing each races significantly different play styles, though they won't yet reveal how the Terran and Zerg can hope to counter the impressively powerful abilities of the Protoss' Mothership. Specific attention was paid to low-level tech tree abilities, as Pardo explained Blizzard has taken steps to expand the available options and make early-game mechanics more varied." // http://pc.ign.com/articles/790/790186p1.html
The last part of this paragraph seems to hint so anyhow.
c) I havn't played Starcraft seriously for years but I know that in Warcraft 3 you have to send away 3 workers to gold, 1 to wood and 1 to build a building and then tell your town hall to build another worked within a few sec. If you do any mistake during those first few minutes you're completly screwed when the enemy rush comes. Making the start itself a bit less intensive I suppose could be good, would have to be carefully balanced though because well played rushes have to be viable.
d) From what I've understood they want to make each unit in Starcraft 2 very important. They don't want any units like the Dark Archon that are only used in very few games.
e) I think it would be nice with options for minerals. Maybe when you host a game you can choose between mineral poor, mineral average, mineral rich and mineral unlimited? I think a somewhat low amount is better for the aggresive style that is better for ladder and e-sport play.
In war3 when you start with 5 workers, you send 3 to gold and 2 to build buildings. 1 to build a farm/zig/mw/borrow and the other to build a rax/aow/crypt. And then build 2 workers from your main. At least that's how i played it... i;ve never heard about sending 1 to wood >_>
On May 27 2007 11:25 SoleSteeler wrote: I think you're absolutely insane if you think that MBS is what killed AoX, directly or indirectly.
It doesn't make a 'newb' that good at all. There's sooooo many other factors in a game that someone can be better at.
I honestly can't believe you think like that >_< It's just so illogical and irrational to think that it affects the game THAT much... to say that it newbifies the game so much that people can't be 'pros'...
Think about how easy chess or checkers is to play... there's pros in that. There's pros in ANYTHING that can be played competitvely. Having MBS doesn't kill that, ever. In any way shape or form.
please... I realize my english isn't exactely good on the contrary it has been pretty awful these posts, but if you don't understand what I am typing please ask me to clarify rather than asume things I definetly didn't write.
I said nothing implying the fact that AoX failed because MBS made the game so easy that people couldn't be pros. I said that games that want to be macro focused with MBS has to make the macro rather complicated. And that complexity turns newbs away from the game after the first year or so. Which means that the game dies online after say 2-3 years. At least this is how it has been historically whenever a complex macro RTS has been launched.
As for Surpreme commander beeing a huge hit. If it has an online community of 500 000+ (small figure...) 2 years after it's release then i shall gladly admit I was wrong. (And smile when doing so because that would make me happy)
Supreme Commander will survive for a long long time. Not because it has a huge community (it has a tiny one), but because the community it has are atleast as hardcore as the Starcraft one. The Supreme Commander community is full of people that have been playing Total Anhilation until the release of Supreme Commander and that game is even older then Starcraft. They kept playing the game even after the online servers for the game went offline :O.
The failure of games like Supreme Commander to become large hits is because they tend to lack any soul. If we take Supreme Commander as an example. You might build 100 T3 units and send them against your opponent but you don't CARE about any of them. They don't speak any cool quotes when you select them, they don't fight in any particularly cool way. They're just disposable junk that you mostly observe as dots from the Strategical Map.
AoX failed I think because it didn't get any support from EA because EA was releasing Battle of Middle Earth at the same time and prefered focusing on that. Also AoX didn't really have anything that distinguished it from other games at the time. For anyone playing WC3 at the time there just wasn't enough in AoX to change game. It didn't help that the Campaign in AoX wasn't all that good and from my understanding it didn't have any good map editor to grow a modding community out of.
When it coems to the Age of XXX games, I used to love the first ones but I didn't like Age of Empires III, now why I don't like that game I have no idea. I think games have this hard to define quality that just makes you like them. Blizzards games all have that quality but alot of the other games out there lack it.
It might be as you say that most of the games that have had MBS have been very macro oriented games and inheritly hostile to new players. However Starcraft 2 is supposed to be a micro/macro hybrid that anyone can pick up and play for fun but where the pros can demonstrate infinatly higher levels of skill. The game will be complex but in a deeper more meaningfull way.
Examples could be that with the protoss new Warp Gate production system it becomes very important what kind of areas you have covered in psi field. While the newb might only have covered his base a pro might have a sneaky Warp Prism projecting a field over the cliff looking over the entrence to his base ready to Warp in some heavy ranged units to high ground as suprise.
I think generally Starcraft 2 will be full of abilities that in a new players hand won't be very usefull but in the hands of a pro will be terrifying.
On May 27 2007 11:25 SoleSteeler wrote: I think you're absolutely insane if you think that MBS is what killed AoX, directly or indirectly.
It doesn't make a 'newb' that good at all. There's sooooo many other factors in a game that someone can be better at.
I honestly can't believe you think like that >_< It's just so illogical and irrational to think that it affects the game THAT much... to say that it newbifies the game so much that people can't be 'pros'...
Think about how easy chess or checkers is to play... there's pros in that. There's pros in ANYTHING that can be played competitvely. Having MBS doesn't kill that, ever. In any way shape or form.
please... I realize my english isn't exactely good on the contrary it has been pretty awful these posts, but if you don't understand what I am typing please ask me to clarify rather than asume things I definetly didn't write.
I said nothing implying the fact that AoX failed because MBS made the game so easy that people couldn't be pros. I said that games that want to be macro focused with MBS has to make the macro rather complicated. And that complexity turns newbs away from the game after the first year or so. Which means that the game dies online after say 2-3 years. At least this is how it has been historically whenever a complex macro RTS has been launched.
As for Surpreme commander beeing a huge hit. If it has an online community of 500 000+ (small figure...) 2 years after it's release then i shall gladly admit I was wrong. (And smile when doing so because that would make me happy)
Macro in AoX wansn't very complicated. Sure you had 3 resources but one of them you basically needed only for advanced units/upgrades and it was easy to gather since you could have only certain amount of workers assigned to the mine (it was the only resource that had mine in AoX).
I told you before what killed the game, the fact that nobody knew it was there and the complete shitness of the GameSpy supported online play (only 1 account per game copy allowed? please...).
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?
1. Does it hurt Micro and Macro both... equally? Hard to say.
2. Does it benefit the newb only? Don\\\'t think so.
3. Does it actually make the game more battle and maneuver based? Probably.
4. Would being more battle and maneuver based mean all the players that rely on APM would become much worse players? I seriously doubt it.
5. Would some pro players be hurt by MBS? Probably... but only those that didn\\\'t master every aspect of the game.
6. Does MBS take away from the beauty of the game of SC2? We can\\\'t answer this, because there may be so much more to do... we won\\\'t know till we play. And really play... not just 1 month of alpha testing.
I will say this. Don\\\'t be so sure of why you didn\\\'t enjoy Warcraft 3. The design sounded like it\\\'d be fun for me, but for whatever reason I just couldnt stick with it. It wasn\\\'t as fun as SC. So i won\\\'t take a hard stance on MBS. The situation for SC2 and MBS isn\\\'t clear until the game is played. It could be for the better... it could be for the worse. But I will stand by my distinct preference that sloppy micro, when you are trying to micro, is just a travesty to see.
------
MBS would take away from one large luck factor in SC. Those every so present moments at fastest play games (it wasn\\\'t always fastest in the old days) where you decide to go back to your base to build men during a battle... and then because of that 2 second delay, you lost half of your force due to something that you totally could have prevented if you had watched the battle. Sometimes you are able to avoid these simply due to good scouting and not being surprised... but sometimes you don\\\'t know what\\\'s in the back of that tank push because you don\\\'t have a comstat (toss/zerg) to get past the turrets, tanks, and mines. Well, perhaps you can\\\'t take your eyes off a tank push, but late game that means death. With MBS, you could keep fighting when you knew it was important and not take your eyes off the battle at that point in time.
MBS frees up more hotkeys and will allow for more hotkeying of groups of units... for fancier flanks and attacking more areas at once.
As some have pointed out, for maximum mechnical and dexterity you could actually take away some of the UI features like hotkeying units, etc. There is a balance to be made, for sure. I don\\\'t think anyone would argue that being able to hotkey units is a bad thing... yet in the old days of RTS you couldn\\\'t do it and it required more actions to do the same thing you can do in Starcraft. This hardly makes Starcraft a less skillful game.
MBS would fix something that would make me happy. A pet peeve of mine is rallying production facilities one at a time. it\\\'s fine when you have two gates. When you have 10+ gates it\\\'s more than a little annoying to do them one at a time without hotkeys and just about impossible to have all 10+ of them hotkeyed.
-Realizations-
Realization: After thinking on this more, I\\\'m actually leaning to MBS being a good thing.
Realization2 (slightly off topic, but while we\\\'re on design): Going back to the \\\"fast speed\\\" vs \\\"fastest speed\\\"... gamers will gravitate to fastest, but I think fast speed games typically emphasize early game balance, whereas fastest speed games typically emphasize late game balance. Early game balance being more critical in design so that late game can even be achieved. I hope to see fast speed (or faster) played in the SC2 beta.
Realization 3: i take back what i said in other post a little. Perhaps not all races in SC are micro/macro equal. Terran must be more macro friendly despite Boxer\\\'s micro fame. i say this because (correct me if i\\\'m wrong) there are more terran pros making it to higher levels of tournaments and more of their styles usually revolve around late game macro. And Terran, perhaps, has the easiest chance to defend against early aggressive micro/harrass and even late game harrass... early vs. zerg is probably the trickiest but that\\\'s 1 out of 3 matches (or 1 out of 4 now with Terran\\\'s large presence).
Conclusion?
Blizzard will do what they think is right. They are smart, lucky, and stubborn. I think they\\\'ll get it right.
What you said was quite good. I read all these posts last night and then got in my bed. I couldn't sleep. I just stared at the celling thinking about what we have talked about. I thought about all the starcraft games I've casted. I thought about the games that were fun to cast and the games that weren't. I thought about the games that enlightened my understanding of Starcraft and the ones that confused me. One game was stuck in my mind. WCG 2006 Iloveoov versus white-ra.
White-ra has always been one of my favorite players. He's sneaky and creative. His builds are also brilliant. But i feel he shines more in his creative builds and daring moves than in his ability to follow a linear path to get maxed out. When he faced the mighty iloveoov white-ra played with no fear in his eyes. He wasn't afraid to leave his base. He wasn't afraid to take some risks while the world was watching. He wasn't afraid to keep trying new strategic moves after the first one failed. When i was watching the game i thought iloveoov was losing. But white ra fumbled and made one or two simple mistakes. Even though Iloveoov lost so many scvs he grew faster than his opponent. He knew the song to play and he played it quite well. 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.
From reading this thread several times i am starting to see what my opponents are trying to tell me. I'm going to articulate this through some basic starcraft logic. 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.
I did try playing those notes (the revised MBS method). I like it. It feels good on my hands. And with no PSI limit... hm... this could get insane in the late game. It also seems less prone to patterns (but i don't know that for sure because i haven't started playing the actual game yet.)
Here's some of my thoughts on how we could combine these two features in a cool way.
a) Let the game music go with the the macroing patterns. I'm talking about the actual game music, not the notes that you play on the keyboard. Let it get more dramatic as the game picks up (more and more units). Maybe the music could change in battles too. And give the races tons of songs to play along with.
b) Make the tech tree a little bit different from starcrafts original one. I tend to make all of the same type of units at once: 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d. Then I'll make another wave with a different variation: 4z5z6z7z8z9t0t. Now i have a healthy mix of units. Maybe after i do 4z5z6z7z8z9t0t again I'll more those templars into an archon (because they have less energy). 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. This would allow for more openings for the player. The hard part would be balancing all those units.
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.
My respect for you just skyrocketed :=)
a) Advanced ingame music would indeed be an awesome feature.
b) Blizzard have stated that they want to give the players an opportunity to choose different build orders instead of being locked into a single "supreme" version.
"Pardo highlighted a number of bullet points for design goals in the new game, mainly speed, saying the longest a StarCraft 2 match should take is around 20 minutes. Blizzard is emphasizing each races significantly different play styles, though they won't yet reveal how the Terran and Zerg can hope to counter the impressively powerful abilities of the Protoss' Mothership. Specific attention was paid to low-level tech tree abilities, as Pardo explained Blizzard has taken steps to expand the available options and make early-game mechanics more varied." // http://pc.ign.com/articles/790/790186p1.html
The last part of this paragraph seems to hint so anyhow.
c) I havn't played Starcraft seriously for years but I know that in Warcraft 3 you have to send away 3 workers to gold, 1 to wood and 1 to build a building and then tell your town hall to build another worked within a few sec. If you do any mistake during those first few minutes you're completly screwed when the enemy rush comes. Making the start itself a bit less intensive I suppose could be good, would have to be carefully balanced though because well played rushes have to be viable.
d) From what I've understood they want to make each unit in Starcraft 2 very important. They don't want any units like the Dark Archon that are only used in very few games.
e) I think it would be nice with options for minerals. Maybe when you host a game you can choose between mineral poor, mineral average, mineral rich and mineral unlimited? I think a somewhat low amount is better for the aggresive style that is better for ladder and e-sport play.
In war3 when you start with 5 workers, you send 3 to gold and 2 to build buildings. 1 to build a farm/zig/mw/borrow and the other to build a rax/aow/crypt. And then build 2 workers from your main. At least that's how i played it... i;ve never heard about sending 1 to wood >_>
I was just a bit confused, it's 4 to gold, 1 altar, then next one build builds a barracks then you pull a worker from the mine to build a farm etc etc. Point being that it's alot of micro to be done in not much time.
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?
1. Does it hurt Micro and Macro both... equally? Hard to say.
2. Does it benefit the newb only? Don\\\'t think so.
3. Does it actually make the game more battle and maneuver based? Probably.
4. Would being more battle and maneuver based mean all the players that rely on APM would become much worse players? I seriously doubt it.
5. Would some pro players be hurt by MBS? Probably... but only those that didn\\\'t master every aspect of the game.
6. Does MBS take away from the beauty of the game of SC2? We can\\\'t answer this, because there may be so much more to do... we won\\\'t know till we play. And really play... not just 1 month of alpha testing.
I will say this. Don\\\'t be so sure of why you didn\\\'t enjoy Warcraft 3. The design sounded like it\\\'d be fun for me, but for whatever reason I just couldnt stick with it. It wasn\\\'t as fun as SC. So i won\\\'t take a hard stance on MBS. The situation for SC2 and MBS isn\\\'t clear until the game is played. It could be for the better... it could be for the worse. But I will stand by my distinct preference that sloppy micro, when you are trying to micro, is just a travesty to see.
------
MBS would take away from one large luck factor in SC. Those every so present moments at fastest play games (it wasn\\\'t always fastest in the old days) where you decide to go back to your base to build men during a battle... and then because of that 2 second delay, you lost half of your force due to something that you totally could have prevented if you had watched the battle. Sometimes you are able to avoid these simply due to good scouting and not being surprised... but sometimes you don\\\'t know what\\\'s in the back of that tank push because you don\\\'t have a comstat (toss/zerg) to get past the turrets, tanks, and mines. Well, perhaps you can\\\'t take your eyes off a tank push, but late game that means death. With MBS, you could keep fighting when you knew it was important and not take your eyes off the battle at that point in time.
MBS frees up more hotkeys and will allow for more hotkeying of groups of units... for fancier flanks and attacking more areas at once.
As some have pointed out, for maximum mechnical and dexterity you could actually take away some of the UI features like hotkeying units, etc. There is a balance to be made, for sure. I don\\\'t think anyone would argue that being able to hotkey units is a bad thing... yet in the old days of RTS you couldn\\\'t do it and it required more actions to do the same thing you can do in Starcraft. This hardly makes Starcraft a less skillful game.
MBS would fix something that would make me happy. A pet peeve of mine is rallying production facilities one at a time. it\\\'s fine when you have two gates. When you have 10+ gates it\\\'s more than a little annoying to do them one at a time without hotkeys and just about impossible to have all 10+ of them hotkeyed.
-Realizations-
Realization: After thinking on this more, I\\\'m actually leaning to MBS being a good thing.
Realization2 (slightly off topic, but while we\\\'re on design): Going back to the \\\"fast speed\\\" vs \\\"fastest speed\\\"... gamers will gravitate to fastest, but I think fast speed games typically emphasize early game balance, whereas fastest speed games typically emphasize late game balance. Early game balance being more critical in design so that late game can even be achieved. I hope to see fast speed (or faster) played in the SC2 beta.
Realization 3: i take back what i said in other post a little. Perhaps not all races in SC are micro/macro equal. Terran must be more macro friendly despite Boxer\\\'s micro fame. i say this because (correct me if i\\\'m wrong) there are more terran pros making it to higher levels of tournaments and more of their styles usually revolve around late game macro. And Terran, perhaps, has the easiest chance to defend against early aggressive micro/harrass and even late game harrass... early vs. zerg is probably the trickiest but that\\\'s 1 out of 3 matches (or 1 out of 4 now with Terran\\\'s large presence).
Conclusion?
Blizzard will do what they think is right. They are smart, lucky, and stubborn. I think they\\\'ll get it right.
What you said was quite good. I read all these posts last night and then got in my bed. I couldn't sleep. I just stared at the celling thinking about what we have talked about. I thought about all the starcraft games I've casted. I thought about the games that were fun to cast and the games that weren't. I thought about the games that enlightened my understanding of Starcraft and the ones that confused me. One game was stuck in my mind. WCG 2006 Iloveoov versus white-ra.
White-ra has always been one of my favorite players. He's sneaky and creative. His builds are also brilliant. But i feel he shines more in his creative builds and daring moves than in his ability to follow a linear path to get maxed out. When he faced the mighty iloveoov white-ra played with no fear in his eyes. He wasn't afraid to leave his base. He wasn't afraid to take some risks while the world was watching. He wasn't afraid to keep trying new strategic moves after the first one failed. When i was watching the game i thought iloveoov was losing. But white ra fumbled and made one or two simple mistakes. Even though Iloveoov lost so many scvs he grew faster than his opponent. He knew the song to play and he played it quite well. 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.
From reading this thread several times i am starting to see what my opponents are trying to tell me. I'm going to articulate this through some basic starcraft logic. 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.
I did try playing those notes (the revised MBS method). I like it. It feels good on my hands. And with no PSI limit... hm... this could get insane in the late game. It also seems less prone to patterns (but i don't know that for sure because i haven't started playing the actual game yet.)
Here's some of my thoughts on how we could combine these two features in a cool way.
a) Let the game music go with the the macroing patterns. I'm talking about the actual game music, not the notes that you play on the keyboard. Let it get more dramatic as the game picks up (more and more units). Maybe the music could change in battles too. And give the races tons of songs to play along with.
b) Make the tech tree a little bit different from starcrafts original one. I tend to make all of the same type of units at once: 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d. Then I'll make another wave with a different variation: 4z5z6z7z8z9t0t. Now i have a healthy mix of units. Maybe after i do 4z5z6z7z8z9t0t again I'll more those templars into an archon (because they have less energy). 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. This would allow for more openings for the player. The hard part would be balancing all those units.
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.
My respect for you just skyrocketed :=)
a) Advanced ingame music would indeed be an awesome feature.
b) Blizzard have stated that they want to give the players an opportunity to choose different build orders instead of being locked into a single "supreme" version.
"Pardo highlighted a number of bullet points for design goals in the new game, mainly speed, saying the longest a StarCraft 2 match should take is around 20 minutes. Blizzard is emphasizing each races significantly different play styles, though they won't yet reveal how the Terran and Zerg can hope to counter the impressively powerful abilities of the Protoss' Mothership. Specific attention was paid to low-level tech tree abilities, as Pardo explained Blizzard has taken steps to expand the available options and make early-game mechanics more varied." // http://pc.ign.com/articles/790/790186p1.html
The last part of this paragraph seems to hint so anyhow.
c) I havn't played Starcraft seriously for years but I know that in Warcraft 3 you have to send away 3 workers to gold, 1 to wood and 1 to build a building and then tell your town hall to build another worked within a few sec. If you do any mistake during those first few minutes you're completly screwed when the enemy rush comes. Making the start itself a bit less intensive I suppose could be good, would have to be carefully balanced though because well played rushes have to be viable.
d) From what I've understood they want to make each unit in Starcraft 2 very important. They don't want any units like the Dark Archon that are only used in very few games.
e) I think it would be nice with options for minerals. Maybe when you host a game you can choose between mineral poor, mineral average, mineral rich and mineral unlimited? I think a somewhat low amount is better for the aggresive style that is better for ladder and e-sport play.
In war3 when you start with 5 workers, you send 3 to gold and 2 to build buildings. 1 to build a farm/zig/mw/borrow and the other to build a rax/aow/crypt. And then build 2 workers from your main. At least that's how i played it... i;ve never heard about sending 1 to wood >_>
Some Night Elf builds include 1 wisp to wood. You don't need a fast altar when you use a Beastmaster or Dark Ranger (or a Goblin Tinker, but these guys are very map-specific) and the moonwell is built abit later. Ancient of War can be skipped at all in some matchups (NE v HU, NE v ORC).
Actually, the debut phase was quite entertaining in WarCraft III, it's the endgame with all it's flashlights, uber items and limit armies that limited the potential of War3.
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)
On May 27 2007 14:36 Vin{MBL} wrote: actually, i was pretty nub in warcraft3, i used the same starting build/ units for nearly every matchup ;/ yet i still retained a 50% win ratio >_>
50% means nothing unless you mention your level and realm.
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.
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 22:00 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 22:00 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 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
I'm downloading the high res gameplay trailer now so hopefully I can confirm it.![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Klogon/Pictures/star2.jpg)
