EPTEnvision this. You're the actual commander of a Terran army, making units to do a specific task, like say, 10 Ghosts to lockdown 8 Carriers or whatnot. While training the Ghosts, they know that they've been made for the specific task of Locking down the Carriers - they shouldn't expect to do much else given their abilities on the battlefield. So, as such, they organise themselves to maximise their potential of survival. Each of them wasting their Lockdown rounds on one Carrier isn't going to realistically do that, is it? In the roleplaying world sense, Ghosts aren't dumb. They'd know that they have to spread out their fire, so when the commander does finally give the Lockdown command, they Lockdown each individual Carrier themselves.
Is there easy cloning mode now? - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Sudyn
United States744 Posts
Envision this. You're the actual commander of a Terran army, making units to do a specific task, like say, 10 Ghosts to lockdown 8 Carriers or whatnot. While training the Ghosts, they know that they've been made for the specific task of Locking down the Carriers - they shouldn't expect to do much else given their abilities on the battlefield. So, as such, they organise themselves to maximise their potential of survival. Each of them wasting their Lockdown rounds on one Carrier isn't going to realistically do that, is it? In the roleplaying world sense, Ghosts aren't dumb. They'd know that they have to spread out their fire, so when the commander does finally give the Lockdown command, they Lockdown each individual Carrier themselves. | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5405 Posts
 | ||
|
Sudyn
United States744 Posts
And SCVs going on strike? Unlikely in the field of battle - they're probably civilians that were drafted to do their duty to their army. Lacking the abilities to make a good soldier on the battlefield, they're assigned to do labour because they're forced to. Or something. I dunno. Ghosts are smarter. | ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
On August 08 2007 15:02 rS]taCat wrote: their psionic brain stem thing is up there so i'd assume their brain is very closeNot only that, we don't know if a shot to a Protoss's head would be fatal - they may not have their neural center up there like humans do. | ||
|
MindpLay-
40 Posts
| ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
Now starcraft is praised a lot for being a game with strong coutners, but in the hands of great players, these counters can be reversed. (Lings can kill firebats if they surround). The most extreme example of this comes in spell casters. A ghost for example costs 25 min an 75 gas. A carrier costs 150min 350 gas?? (not sure bout that, you can tell im not a p player). By all rights, ghosts shouldnt be able to take on carriers, however in the hands of a great player, this can be done. This allows for some awsome comebacks. If one person has a rough start, he can use a spellcaster to bring himself back into the game. The game becomes much more exciting, because no-one is assured a win, and luck is not the determining factor that decides. Its the ability for a player to make a risky investment pay off. Spellcasters are investments. Sometimes very risky, but greater risks = greater rewards. Please keep it this way in starcraft 2. Please make sure that spellcasters are not just another section of your army. They should stay the same risky investments that have the ability to turn the tide of the game if you are able to use them well enough when the shit hits the fan. | ||
|
InRaged
1047 Posts
On August 09 2007 17:43 Fen wrote: By all rights, ghosts shouldnt be able to take on carriers, however in the hands of a great player, this can be done. Looks like great player isn't born yet, since even almighty boxer didn't do that. Or more accurately, he failed with that much more times than has success Or do you mean when great player plays against bad player? Spellcasters are investments. Sometimes very risky, but greater risks = greater rewards. Please keep it this way in starcraft 2. Please make sure that spellcasters are not just another section of your army. They should stay the same risky investments that have the ability to turn the tide of the game if you are able to use them well enough when the shit hits the fan. Are you trying to change BW concept? If no, look at, for example PvZ or TvZ and even ZvT Heck and at ZvP too Honestly, I can't imagine how starcraft player can write stuff like you just did there | ||
|
Tiptup
United States133 Posts
Smartcasting is not fun to me. Why don't they simply design a streamlined system for cloning and forget about smartcasting? That would make more sense to me. I enjoy having that control and it does take skill. | ||
|
NarutO
Germany18839 Posts
| ||
|
Sudyn
United States744 Posts
| ||
|
tyndale
Australia20 Posts
On August 09 2007 20:15 G.s)NarutO wrote: What the hell, Smartcasting is already banned T.T! The latest official Terran gameplay video has smart casting . | ||
|
DTDominion
United States2148 Posts
The only aspect of cloning that should be changed is if, for instance, you select 10 Ghosts and tell them all to Lock down one Carrier. Only the closest Ghost should actually fire a Lock down missile. Maybe all of them should move to Lock down, but even that's a stretch. All this does is take out consequences to mistakes that are wildly disproportionate to the amount of error the player actually made. This also means you can carelessly select extra spell casters, but it's an acceptable consequence. This way, if you try to pull off a mass Lock down or Irradiate move; it requires skill to successfully clone all your Ghosts or Science Vessels, but you don't risk wasting energy in attempting to pull off this move. Even that might be going too far though, as it reduces the risk involved in trying to use moves that are so powerful. It's still worth testing in BETA in case it would actually improve the game. Right now the smart casting is just too good though. By removing cloning a major skill has been taken out of the game. Move's like Boxer's mass Lock down no longer have any meaning. These moves were a huge part of SC1's popularity. And I can assure you that SC2 won't be able to attain SC1's popularity without them. | ||
|
SuperJongMan
Jamaica11586 Posts
On August 08 2007 14:08 Sudyn wrote: Why shouldn't 10 Ghosts all lockdown one Carrier? Because in a real army, where there are trained specialists like that, stuff like that wouldn't realistically happen. They'd have some sort of organisation (one doesn't know how long an IRL second is in game). Envision this. You're the actual commander of a Terran army, making units to do a specific task, like say, 10 Ghosts to lockdown 8 Carriers or whatnot.... See? That's the problem. As Terran Commander, you have just commanded those 10 ghosts to lockdown Carrier A. By not locking down carrier A, they have disobeyed your orders as Terran commander and deserve to be court marshalled. So you're right, trained specialists usually listen to orders they are given. If you were gosu and cloned, different story... and that's why cloning should be an everyday part of a healthy breakfast. | ||
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
I agree that Blizzard has to be careful to not simplify the game controls too much or else risk losing the large amount of depth in skill. Nony's post discussed the dangers of this rather well. Making the game too easy to play (i.e. too easy to translate thought to action) will detract from the RTS elements of time/action management, the very elements that distinguish it from turn-based strategy. I don't think making individual tasks (i.e. irradiating/locking down multiple units) easier to accomplish is a bad thing, but making it easier to play well (i.e. execute strategies/tactics) overall could be. As stated above, Blizzard seems to be aware of this danger and is making an effort to address it. I think their idea of making the mundane easier while increasing the amount of "meaningful" tasks to micro is a great one. There's nothing wrong with making things easier to do so long as there are still a lot of things to do in total. The only danger in oversimplification of the UI is the danger of players plateuing too easily in effectively executing strategies and tactics. This can be addressed by making the strategies and tactics more complex to counter the lack of difficulty in the specific actions done. Bottom line: So long as there is more to do than can be done in accomplishing "perfect" execution, there is no danger of the game losing any depth from UI improvements. What the individual actions are that need to be accomplished doesn't matter as long as it's not possible to do everything you need to in order to play "perfectly". SC is great because it's nigh-impossible to play a perfect game because there's always more to do than can be done. SC2 can have this same quality by adding new actions/tactics to execute while simplifying its UI. | ||
|
Tiptup
United States133 Posts
On August 10 2007 04:49 XaI)CyRiC wrote: I agree that Blizzard has to be careful to not simplify the game controls too much or else risk losing the large amount of depth in skill. Nony's post discussed the dangers of this rather well. Making the game too easy to play (i.e. too easy to translate thought to action) will detract from the RTS elements of time/action management, the very elements that distinguish it from turn-based strategy. I don't think making individual tasks (i.e. irradiating/locking down multiple units) easier to accomplish is a bad thing, but making it easier to play well (i.e. execute strategies/tactics) overall could be. The best spellcaster (in a group of spellcasters) to cast a particular spell should be a huge tactical element in StarCraft. By implementing smartcasting, things like psi-storm actually do become mundane if you ask me. Having the computer choose which unit casts a spell for me seems boring, I don't care if it makes cloning easier. I'd rather have an actual interface improvement make cloning easier for us (not a program that performs the tactical element of cloning for me). For example, I'd rather be given better access to information such as where particular spellcasters (in a unit group) are located on the map (in relation to how they show up in the unit-group box) and, most importantly, how much energy each them has. Then I'd like a fast, smooth interface to give me control over choosing those individual units (in the group of units) without being required to un-select them all. StarCraft was very clunky in this regard, true, but having a computer play the game for me seems boring. Now, all of that said, I get your point about having some actions be automatic. It would be frustrating to babysit every last thing a unit does (like harvest, then deposit, then harvest again) but I don't get how cloning a very powerful combat spell fits under the category of something that is tedious and common. Also, another fine dividing line between automatic actions and actions that should be commanded can be whether or not a unit's individual AI makes the decision or if I have an AI interpretting my commands for a group of units. For instance, putting a rally point on a mineral deposit is a command that affects all units who experience that rally command. if an SCV gets that command, it makes perfect sense that it would start collecting minerals by itself (as if I had right-clicked it there myself). Then, if it finds that deposit occupied, and there are unoccupied mineral deposits to the side, its individual unit AI is what tells it to go the the unoccupied slot and that makes sense. Autocasting (like the Medic's Heal ability) is very similar in the way it is handled by individual-unit AI. Commanding a group of units, and then have an intermediary AI decide which unit is the best unit to perform that command on my behalf does not increase fun. It simply makes the game easier as I sit back and watch program perform every action for me. | ||
KwarK
United States41931 Posts
I believe in SC2 you should be able to take a group of units, hold down C (for clone) and then click a load of places. Lets say for example you select 8 units and then click 4 places with C held down. When you release C 2 of those would go to each of the destinations. It is quite simply a logical improvement in UI that has a precedent in the shift key. Now consider it with stormers. To take 4 stormers and storm 4 different places pvz by cloning you'd hold shift, tell 4 to storm one hydra, remove one from wireframe, tell 3 to storm the next etc and then release shift and they'd do it. The average player can do that shit at high speed. But it's a crude and clumsy way of doing it. I'd much rather select 4 stormers, hold C, click on 4 different hydralisks and then release C and find each stormer hitting each of them. I doubt this would be any more game breaking than the invention of cloning with the shift key. The only reason it doesn't already exist is that cloning was invented by Starcraft players as they used the UI in ways Blizzard hadn't imagined. | ||
|
NarutO
Germany18839 Posts
On August 13 2007 18:59 Kwark wrote: I think a cloning function similar to what we currently have with waypoints is both inevitable and logical. At the moment we can hold shift down and then give a unit a load of things to do. When we release shift it'll happily trot off and do them. And nobody is complaining about how much more time and control it'd take if we had to do all that manually. I believe in SC2 you should be able to take a group of units, hold down C (for clone) and then click a load of places. Lets say for example you select 8 units and then click 4 places with C held down. When you release C 2 of those would go to each of the destinations. It is quite simply a logical improvement in UI that has a precedent in the shift key. Now consider it with stormers. To take 4 stormers and storm 4 different places pvz by cloning you'd hold shift, tell 4 to storm one hydra, remove one from wireframe, tell 3 to storm the next etc and then release shift and they'd do it. The average player can do that shit at high speed. But it's a crude and clumsy way of doing it. I'd much rather select 4 stormers, hold C, click on 4 different hydralisks and then release C and find each stormer hitting each of them. I doubt this would be any more game breaking than the invention of cloning with the shift key. The only reason it doesn't already exist is that cloning was invented by Starcraft players as they used the UI in ways Blizzard hadn't imagined. But you know that you can select 4 templars in Broodwar storming at a point (not a unit) and they already spread their storms? | ||
|
Fuu
198 Posts
On August 08 2007 09:48 Fen wrote: One thing that seems to be assumed here by a lot of people is that everyone should be able to lockdown 10 carriers. Why? Currently I cant execute a move anywhere near that difficult in BW, it doesn't make the game less fun at all. My main opponent is my cousin. We are at equal skills levels, and both of us are unable to do anything like what you would see in a progame. Still we have intense games where it feels like we are going at a million miles an hour. We utilise the spells that we are able to use effectively just like we micro as well as we can (even though it would look awful to a pro). And we have a blast while doing it. There is always that option to try something risky in hopes that we shine when the moment comes, which adds to the game. The ability to use spells to their fullest extent isnt something that should be requried by all players to make the game fun. Thats just pointless. This same thing extends to all parts of the game. Playing at the best of your ability against someone who your equally matched with is what the fun part in starcraft is all about. Not doing mass lockdowns (of course this doesnt hold true if you are capable of mass lockdowns). In SC2, with the matchmaking system, people will be playing against others of the same skill level. Not against pros. I like to think of it like learning an instrument. First you get it and you suck. Then you practice a bit and learn to play something that sounds pretty good. Thats fun, and playing with people that are the same level as you is fun. Then you play some more, and you get better, and its fun again because you are doing somehting that sounds better than what you were doing before. This continues all the way until your a pro. No-one picks up an instrument and has no fun until they can play really technical pieces. Starcraft 2 should be similar. Always room to improve, but still fun due to the fact that your playing at the best of your abilities. Acheivement is one of the most enjoyable experiences in all activities and keeps people coming back for more. Blizzard should know this formula from WOW. So make a massive scale, make it difficult to achieve more, people will want to do it, and for those who dont go hardcore, they will be happy to be as good as they are. Trust me, it's a real pleasure when, somehow, in these SC2 full of shit forums, you can read once every ten pages one intelligent comment. You come here to see what people think, 90% of the posters are teenagers coming from i dont know where (how the hell so many W3 addicts find their way to there ?), and finally you read a post like that, well written, explaining the things in a way even the laziest player could understand. And you feel warm inside. It obviously won't protect the game from idiot voices, because usually they speak much louder and they are the mass market aim, but it's a pleasant feeling. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Say, i have 12 carriers i stack these carriers so they are perfectly inline with each other i have the most godly micro alive and can keep them perfectly stacked for as long as i need My opponent has 12 ghosts with 100 energy - no more, no less Can he lock down all my 12 carriers? What should happen to the ghosts? | ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
On August 10 2007 19:51 Tiptup wrote: You are psychotic, thanks. All smartcasting means is "pick the closest caster to the target that has enough mana and cast one time" as opposed to stupid casting where the AI says to itself "hey lets all cast a spell that may or may not be stackable at the exact same spot"There's a big difference between "autocast" and "smartcast." In general I don't mind autocast: it works exactly the same as when a combat unit automatically attacks enemy units that come within its attack range. Smartcasting is very different, however. Smartcasting means you can give a spell command to your entire army and a computer program calculates which spellcaster should be the one to cast that spell for you. It will decide whether it's better for one unit to save its energy or not. It will decide whether it's better for the closest caster to cast the spell or not. The best spellcaster (in a group of spellcasters) to cast a particular spell should be a huge tactical element in StarCraft. By implementing smartcasting, things like psi-storm actually do become mundane if you ask me. Having the computer choose which unit casts a spell for me seems boring, I don't care if it makes cloning easier. I'd rather have an actual interface improvement make cloning easier for us (not a program that performs the tactical element of cloning for me). For example, I'd rather be given better access to information such as where particular spellcasters (in a unit group) are located on the map (in relation to how they show up in the unit-group box) and, most importantly, how much energy each them has. Then I'd like a fast, smooth interface to give me control over choosing those individual units (in the group of units) without being required to un-select them all. StarCraft was very clunky in this regard, true, but having a computer play the game for me seems boring. Now, all of that said, I get your point about having some actions be automatic. It would be frustrating to babysit every last thing a unit does (like harvest, then deposit, then harvest again) but I don't get how cloning a very powerful combat spell fits under the category of something that is tedious and common. Also, another fine dividing line between automatic actions and actions that should be commanded can be whether or not a unit's individual AI makes the decision or if I have an AI interpretting my commands for a group of units. For instance, putting a rally point on a mineral deposit is a command that affects all units who experience that rally command. if an SCV gets that command, it makes perfect sense that it would start collecting minerals by itself (as if I had right-clicked it there myself). Then, if it finds that deposit occupied, and there are unoccupied mineral deposits to the side, its individual unit AI is what tells it to go the the unoccupied slot and that makes sense. Autocasting (like the Medic's Heal ability) is very similar in the way it is handled by individual-unit AI. Commanding a group of units, and then have an intermediary AI decide which unit is the best unit to perform that command on my behalf does not increase fun. It simply makes the game easier as I sit back and watch program perform every action for me. As for cloning, some of you people act like it's a deliberate part of the game design, but it's absolutely not. Cloning was invented because people needed a way to cast non stacking spells on multiple targets quickly without having to individually select units. Psi storm stacked in early SC beta so there was a reason you would want the UI to default to the current behavior, I wouldn't be surprised to learn if other spells like dmatrix also stacked in earlier alphas. There is no reason you would WANT to cast 12 lockdowns on a single unit at once, so there is no reason the UI should default to this behavior except to arbitrarily make the game more difficult. It's a relic of the gameplay and it's got to go. If lockdown and broodling had smartcast UI then we'd probably see ghosts and queens actually get used instead of be nothing more than a gimmick unit. Irradiate might become too strong, but then again you can probably make a case that irradiate is too strong in the first place T_T | ||
| ||
