Near the end when they introduce the 3 ghosts, they didn't have to clone to snipe, or clone to launch 3 droppods.
For anyone that doesn't know what cloning is, its using shift + click on the unit portraits of a group to spread the use of its special abilities quickly. Imagine selecting all 12 sci vessels and casting irridiate all at once.
In the video it seems like that special abilities can be auto split depending on how many there are in the group. In this case 3 ghosts mean you can hit "S" for snipe and can then just click on 3 targets. You can also hit "C" to call down drop ships and then it automatically queues up 3 seperate call commands for each ghost. I'm guessing now we can see 12 battlecruiser fights to turn into 12 fast yamato cannon -> normal fire and so on.
Personally I think cloning adds a factor of skill to the game, this would just make 12 sci vessel irridiate seem much less impressive, or 12 ghost lockdown unimpressive.(Not saying that sc2 has sci vessels or lockdown)
There is a degree of smart cloning in BW for example darchons with mind control. For high speed mass mind control you don't need to queue. Simply hold shift and tell them all to mind control each of the targets and they work it out themselves. I see no reason why they'd not extend this to other units, it would just be simplification of the interface.
On August 06 2007 17:20 Kwark wrote: There is a degree of smart cloning in BW for example darchons with mind control. For high speed mass mind control you don't need to queue. Simply hold shift and tell them all to mind control each of the targets and they work it out themselves. I see no reason why they'd not extend this to other units, it would just be simplification of the interface.
I think DA is a special case because it the other 11 archons cannot mind control something that is already controlled, then it skips to its next target. I think every other spell would stack all on one if you use shift+click.
I think this smart( or easy) cloning mode is probably a nice thing for all the wc3 players, since smart cloning was part of wc3. But psy storms will be made so much easier to use, even for nubs. I'm afraid this will make micro of that sort less important, and maybe even the game too easy to master, thus not as interesting as it could be.
Ugh, why don't we all walk around with our hands tied behind our backs? This will only make it so the pros can pull more spectacular moves. I think SC is a far superior game to WC3 but I hate it when people bash on improvements from the WC3 interface just because they got used to the "skill" of having to wrangle with the SC interface.
I'm a wc3 player so I'd prefer an improved interface I don't think it will make pros make more spectacular moves, it will make the spectacular moves more common as it will be easier to do.
It'd would make 6 irradiates less impressive, but 12 or 18 would still demand a lot of hand speed.
There will always be difficult moves to pull of. The interface is still not perfect in the sence that all units are doing exactly what you want at all times. The difference is that the wow-moves that the pros will pull of will be even more spectacular, and just as impossible for us mortals! I expect the pros to invent micro-stunts that noone else can pull of. after all, that is what they are (will be) payed for, right? That is at least what I think, and hope.
There is a certain amount of appreciation when watching Boxer lock down 10 carriers so fluidly, knowing that only a pro can execute it so proficiently. There is also a certain amount of pride you have when you perfectly execute a complicated micro/clone/cast moment. Now that everyone who picks up the game at future shop can go home ad perform that, really irks me. I've been as optimistic as anyone about SC2, but I keep hearing how easy macro is now, it just bothers me. People with 80 apm will have just as much control as Nada if they make the game too easy. Now Micro is super easy? Starting to get uncomfortable.
Different skill sets will adapt from the interface improvements. I wouldn't worry about them. An example: while before it was amazing to be able to use all your templars storms really quickly and accurately now it will be expected and the gosus will be able to do this while multitasking a drop or something like this. I wouldn't worry about interface improvements for the most part. As long as they don't go overboard and take control out the players hand completely. That was probably really awkardly written
Its really nice in wc3 how with a group of raiders to ensnare all u do is hit e click for each one while selecting the whole group. Now the fast become faster, the micro stars no longer lack in units, and the macro gorillas hardly look away from their army.
Im willing to be one of the first to stand up and say: A + click will wither and die in sc2
On August 06 2007 17:56 MindpLay- wrote: I don't think it will make pros make more spectacular moves, it will make the spectacular moves more common as it will be easier to do.
And therefore no longer spectacular, just standard.
If you go out and watch a warcraft 3 match, youll note that nothing is spectacular. This is due to a few reasons, however one of them is due to the fact that spellcasting was made very easy in that game due to the smartcasting system.
I believe that its very important for people to easily distinguish between a good player and a great player just by watching them play. Its what makes spectator sports soo interesting. Seeing things that you know that you couldnt possibly pull off yourself is what makes spectator sports. With the new smartcasting system, we will see mass destruction of units, however it wont be as spectacular due to the fact that the move itself wasnt very hard to execute in the first place.
EDIT: This is a common video floating around the net, however it shows exactly what I mean. Im not a street fighter player, but I can tell this is really hard to pull off and the crowds reaction is what spectator games are all about.
On August 06 2007 17:56 MindpLay- wrote: I don't think it will make pros make more spectacular moves, it will make the spectacular moves more common as it will be easier to do.
And therefore no longer spectacular, just standard.
If you go out and watch a warcraft 3 match, youll note that nothing is spectacular. This is due to a few reasons, however one of them is due to the fact that spellcasting was made very easy in that game due to the smartcasting system.
I believe that its very important for people to easily distinguish between a good player and a great player just by watching them play. Its what makes spectator sports soo interesting. Seeing things that you know that you couldnt possibly pull off yourself is what makes spectator sports. With the new smartcasting system, we will see mass destruction of units, however it wont be as spectacular due to the fact that the move itself wasnt very hard to execute in the first place.
EDIT: This is a common video floating around the net, however it shows exactly what I mean. Im not a street fighter player, but I can tell this is really hard to pull off and the crowds reaction is what spectator games are all about.
On August 06 2007 17:20 Kwark wrote: There is a degree of smart cloning in BW for example darchons with mind control. For high speed mass mind control you don't need to queue. Simply hold shift and tell them all to mind control each of the targets and they work it out themselves. I see no reason why they'd not extend this to other units, it would just be simplification of the interface.
Well i don't think that is intentionally made "smart" but it is because mind control cannot work on your own units so by definition mind control has to be one unit per spell cast because the additional MC on already MCed unit will be counted as null.
But I'd like to see some smart cloning, it sounds great. Now you can just hold down this one key and put in repetitive commands and see them clone.
For instance, you select 10 marines. Then you hold down "c" key for Clone, then you spam click 10 places on the map, release "c" key, and the units will walk to those 10 diff spots. would be cool
On August 06 2007 19:08 oshibori_probe wrote: Autoclone rocks
Its really nice in wc3 how with a group of raiders to ensnare all u do is hit e click for each one while selecting the whole group. Now the fast become faster, the micro stars no longer lack in units, and the macro gorillas hardly look away from their army.
Im willing to be one of the first to stand up and say: A + click will wither and die in sc2
well then theres gonna be no differnece between 'micro stars' and 'macro gorillas' then
On August 06 2007 19:29 Fen wrote: And therefore no longer spectacular, just standard.
If you go out and watch a warcraft 3 match, youll note that nothing is spectacular. This is due to a few reasons, however one of them is due to the fact that spellcasting was made very easy in that game due to the smartcasting system.
I believe that its very important for people to easily distinguish between a good player and a great player just by watching them play. Its what makes spectator sports soo interesting. Seeing things that you know that you couldnt possibly pull off yourself is what makes spectator sports. With the new smartcasting system, we will see mass destruction of units, however it wont be as spectacular due to the fact that the move itself wasnt very hard to execute in the first place.
EDIT: This is a common video floating around the net, however it shows exactly what I mean. Im not a street fighter player, but I can tell this is really hard to pull off and the crowds reaction is what spectator games are all about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtuA5we0RZU
-----------------------------
I AM LIMING THIS ENTIRE POST. I AGREE WITH IT THAT MUCH.
On August 06 2007 20:20 fusionsdf wrote: On August 06 2007 19:29 Fen wrote: And therefore no longer spectacular, just standard.
If you go out and watch a warcraft 3 match, youll note that nothing is spectacular. This is due to a few reasons, however one of them is due to the fact that spellcasting was made very easy in that game due to the smartcasting system.
I believe that its very important for people to easily distinguish between a good player and a great player just by watching them play. Its what makes spectator sports soo interesting. Seeing things that you know that you couldnt possibly pull off yourself is what makes spectator sports. With the new smartcasting system, we will see mass destruction of units, however it wont be as spectacular due to the fact that the move itself wasnt very hard to execute in the first place.
EDIT: This is a common video floating around the net, however it shows exactly what I mean. Im not a street fighter player, but I can tell this is really hard to pull off and the crowds reaction is what spectator games are all about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtuA5we0RZU
-----------------------------
I AM LIMING THIS ENTIRE POST. I AGREE WITH IT THAT MUCH.
I've played both sc and wc3, although im much better at wc3 i still prefer watching sc vods since the pro moves are so much cooler and the game so much more exciting. I have about 220 apm and i can pull off almost all the same moves as pros, and believe me, im not that good.
With sc wich i have been playing a lot more lately (with sc2 announced) , i noticed that things i saw on vods were almost impossible for me ever to understand how they could possible pull thing like that off.
SC is harder wich makes more room for spectacular moves, with sc2 looking more like wc3 AOE spellwise, im affraid it WILL be less spectactular. Though I have a lot of faith in blizzard, I still fear that balancing the interface will be hard.
Ok someone in the thread mentioned how if the interface for cloning is improved, the pros will have more, and better things to concentrate on other than struggling with the interface. Lets take the example of people complaining about multiple building selection.
Someone who attended Blizzcon mentioned that it was very easy to macro, they had tons of minerals and with a click of about 3 buttons, he could reduce it all to nothing. This might be what seperated him from the noobs who did not take the time to hotkey their buildings are had an idea of what macro was. But think about it, this guy wasn't a pro yet he had perfect macro? would you be eliminating the macro part of the game then?
Think about what would be different if cloning were automated, and how it while used much more often, would seem much less impressive when done. If we take this away from the game what parts of the game would be left to be impressive.
WARNING: most of these won't be in SC2, but I'm just stating how important this is if we apply it to BW.
12 vessel irridiate = easy, select 12 vessels , then hit "i" then just click 12 lurkers boom their all dead now.
12 ghost lockdown on carriers = easy, as soon as you know their going carriers, start building ghosts, not long till they have 75 energy. now same thing hit "l" and each click means a lock downed carrier
24 scourge spread = just auto clone two on everything, no longer that impressive is it?
5 high templar storm = hotkey 5 HT to your "5" key, when engaged in TvP war, A + move your army, then hit 5 and click 5 times on the 5 clumped groups. now you don't have to click on each individual templar/unit portrait
3 defiler swarm path = just hit "w" then draw a path into the frontline of a T base, all the way inside, now A + move all your zerglings
12 battlecruiser fight = select 12 cruisers, hit s, now click on the opponents battle cruisers. In a real game, if your opponent were weaker than you, your yamato spread would dominate. Now the newb can equal your yamato spread.
While this might "improve" the interface, I do not believe cloning was that much of an interface hassle to begin with. Newbs original wouldn't bother with cloning, and only experienced players took advantage of it. If you make cloning this easy, you are allowing newbs to do these special micro moves, which pretty much takes the micro away from it. The moves I listed above are supposed to be what seperates the pro from the noob, all those techniques are essential to gain the upperhand in a battle, and truly seperates the experienced and faster hand speed player from a hasu player.
Starcraft improved greatly upon Command and Conquer's interface, did that break the game? No, people(or just one person) just came up with stuff like mass lockdown and mutalisk vs worker sniping to wow the audiences, instead of individual controlling 30 units in an army.
You guys forget that it's not about "being impressive", it's about being fun to play. Being able to do more complex stuff without having super-high APM makes the game more interesting for the *players*, which is the most important part. I really doubt there will be a lack of spectacularity in pro games anyway - there will still be amazing 1 in 100 game moves, they just won't be exactly the same things that they are now, while regular gameplay will probably be more varied.
On August 06 2007 21:37 gravity wrote: You guys forget that it's not about "being impressive", it's about being fun to play. Being able to do more complex stuff without having super-high APM makes the game more interesting for the *players*, which is the most important part. I really doubt there will be a lack of spectacularity in pro games anyway - there will still be amazing 1 in 100 game moves, they just won't be exactly the same things that they are now, while regular gameplay will probably be more varied.
its about being impressive for progaming though... :/
If the average player can do what pros do, the average joes will enjoy the game more? Logical, but blizz wants to be the game fast to learn, and a lifetime to master, so ur statement and their easy cloning is pretty contradictive
So, if every Joe-Schmo can play as well as a pro, but still lose to a pro, what makes a person pro? (And yes, they will lose, horribly, just as it is now)
It's not just because they can click fast. I can do that too :/
P.S. where were you guys 6 weeks ago when we found out that Smartcasting was in the game? This isn't news >_<
I'm totally against makeing the interface easier.. and i've always sucked at sc, There is nothing to go wow at when everyone can do it. And i totally lose interest.. They keep adding all theese useless bells and whistles to an allready perfect game. :\
I think that as long as they add a lot of possible things to micro it doesnt matter if the micro itself is made a bit easier. Blizzard have said that they will do just that.
Example:
Right now lets imagine a PvT the protoss army consisting of zealots, goons and HTs ready with storm. In BW the protoss player would attackmove the zealots and goons in, maybe moving the zealots so they walk past the frontline and then spread them over the tanks more evenly... then clone storms with the HT.
The same situation in SC2. Then sure the storms will be easier to cast but now at the same time as you cast your storms you will have to micro your stalkers to perfection using blink etc.
BW has the right amount of hand dexterity required. If a BW game goes long enough, even the pros known for their perfect mechanics have to make decisions with regard to BW's third resource: time. The top players have to decide how much time to spend with each pressing issue, knowing that the issues ignored will suffer. A computer game shouldn't be built such that if you know what to do, you can automatically do it. That's a board game. For example, in Chess, or Risk, it does not take any skill to move a piece. Simplifying a computer game's interface to the point that the action on screen is just an extension of your thoughts is a big mistake. How much of your decisions actually come through on-screen should be mitigated by hand speed.
Purposely setting up the interface this way is not supporting an outdated or stupid interface, but rather it is perfecting what makes computer games computer games as opposed to sports or board games. All games require decision-making but sports also require physical fitness, computer games require hand dexterity, and board games require nothing in addition at all. A tennis player can decide to hit the ball into the far corner, but he can still fail if his body is not capable of such strength and accuracy. It would be silliness to alter the game of tennis in some way such that players are not limited by their physical capabilities. Tennis fans know that the strategical requirements and the physical requirements of the game are already well-balanced.
I say that BW has achieved balance because it is quite comparable to other very successful games. The popular sports in America, like football, basketball and baseball, are all successful at both the professional and amateur levels. If you watch professional games, the best players in the world still come up short in performance: an NFL receiver drops a pass, an NBA player misses a shot, etc. These mistakes exist and in similar frequencies in each sport. "Easy" moves still have a noticable failure rate, likewise "impossible" moves still have a noticable success rate. And despite the professional players struggling to achieve perfection, millions of amateurs still love to play. The professionals and amateurs form a mutual relationship. Professionals need fans and replacements, amateurs need someone to look up to and try to copy.
Setting up a mutual symbiotic relationship between professionals and amateurs is the best way to make a game successful and long-lasting. There is a formula out there among all the most popular games in the world (mostly sports) and Blizzard just happened to strike upon it with BW. With SC2, Blizzard musn't leave it to blind luck again. The execution of strategies cannot be made any easier in SC2 than they are in BW.
PS: Blizzard's idea of making a game easy to learn but difficult to master is exactly what this is about, partly. It seems that they want to make the execution of strategies easy, while formulating strategies will take a lifetime. This is not how to make a proper computer game, especially not the successor to BW. People don't want an animated board game on their screens. Other RTS's have been going that direction and their games hold interest for less than a year. The solution is for Blizzard to apply "easy to learn, difficult to master" to both strategy and execution. That is, it's easy to learn how to clone magic spells, but it's incredibly difficult to master.
BW has the right amount of hand dexterity required. If a BW game goes long enough, even the pros known for their perfect mechanics have to make decisions with regard to BW's third resource: time. The top players have to decide how much time to spend with each pressing issue, knowing that the issues ignored will suffer. A computer game shouldn't be built such that if you know what to do, you can automatically do it. That's a board game. For example, in Chess, or Risk, it does not take any skill to move a piece. Simplifying a computer game's interface to the point that the action on screen is just an extension of your thoughts is a big mistake. How much of your decisions actually come through on-screen should be mitigated by hand speed.
Purposely setting up the interface this way is not supporting an outdated or stupid interface, but rather it is perfecting what makes computer games computer games as opposed to sports or board games. All games require decision-making but sports also require physical fitness, computer games require hand dexterity, and board games require nothing in addition at all. A tennis player can decide to hit the ball into the far corner, but he can still fail if his body is not capable of such strength and accuracy. It would be silliness to alter the game of tennis in some way such that players are not limited by their physical capabilities. Tennis fans know that the strategical requirements and the physical requirements of the game are already well-balanced.
I say that BW has achieved balance because it is quite comparable to other very successful games. The popular sports in America, like football, basketball and baseball, are all successful at both the professional and amateur levels. If you watch professional games, the best players in the world still come up short in performance: an NFL receiver drops a pass, an NBA player misses a shot, etc. These mistakes exist and in similar frequencies in each sport. "Easy" moves still have a noticable failure rate, likewise "impossible" moves still have a noticable success rate. And despite the professional players struggling to achieve perfection, millions of amateurs still love to play. The professionals and amateurs form a mutual relationship. Professionals need fans and replacements, amateurs need someone to look up to and try to copy.
Setting up a mutual symbiotic relationship between professionals and amateurs is the best way to make a game successful and long-lasting. There is a formula out there among all the most popular games in the world (mostly sports) and Blizzard just happened to strike upon it with BW. With SC2, Blizzard musn't leave it to blind luck again. The execution of strategies cannot be made any easier in SC2 than they are in BW.
PS: Blizzard's idea of making a game easy to learn but difficult to master is exactly what this is about, partly. It seems that they want to make the execution of strategies easy, while formulating strategies will take a lifetime. This is not how to make a proper computer game, especially not the successor to BW. People don't want an animated board game on their screens. Other RTS's have been going that direction and their games hold interest for less than a year. The solution is for Blizzard to apply "easy to learn, difficult to master" to both strategy and execution. That is, it's easy to learn how to clone magic spells, but it's incredibly difficult to master.
I completly agree with everything you say there. However dont you agree that how hard the controls are doesnt equal the hand dexterity required. If you put SC2s controlls into BW then that would obviously be a bad things since like you say the BW already has the right amount of hand dexterity required. However what if the difference between SC2s and BWs amount of "potential micro" is just as big as the inverse differance in ease of control. Wouldnt that make SC2 have the right amount of hand dexterity required while also enabling new players to do some cool things?
On August 06 2007 21:26 SuperJongMan wrote: I hate when people post out long poorly thought out posts.
i hate when people post the most general ridicule of a kind of post they possibly can instead of actually thinking of any specific rebuttle.
Starcraft isn't a fuckign board game. the reason for this is not because it's graphical. clicking fast is part of the game, and i doubt anyone here can click nearly as fast as a progamer, or do as much with the same amount of clicks, you're just moderates. ok i admit there seem to be multiple ways the necessity of clicking fast could be implimented, such as mass-expand orientedness plus highly open harassable bases. but anyone who's trying to tell me that the game will always be strategical, and that those who want coordination and focus on management are just elitists who don't want to let go of their hard earned skills, or that needing less management skills is more fun for newbs, i will still disagree with.
To a newb at any game or sport, the fun of it should always be in humbly trying to compete with your friends because you know anyone else can kick your ass. that can be fun, if you don't mind being humble. those who are not so comfortable with humbly accepting that the fact they are shit is plainly obvious when they play to themselves and anyone else, and that pros can do so many things they can't that it's an entirely different game, and having fun anyway, are the kind of assholes who attended schools where tag wasn't allowed because it was too competitive, or would send their offspring to such schools, and those who play wow because it's more gratifying than any other game to play on an extremely low level. not say there isn't a more competitive level of wow, but i'm just realizing that that's what i don't respect about the way games are being made these days. the newbs to whom the games are designed to be newb-friendly are fucking sissies with no sense of humility. it used to be different. /rant.
On August 06 2007 17:20 Kwark wrote: There is a degree of smart cloning in BW for example darchons with mind control. For high speed mass mind control you don't need to queue. Simply hold shift and tell them all to mind control each of the targets and they work it out themselves. I see no reason why they'd not extend this to other units, it would just be simplification of the interface.
you dont even have to push shift...if you have all your DA's selected and they all have energy and you select to Mind Control one unit only one will MC it then mc another and another will mc it etc.
On August 06 2007 17:20 Kwark wrote: There is a degree of smart cloning in BW for example darchons with mind control. For high speed mass mind control you don't need to queue. Simply hold shift and tell them all to mind control each of the targets and they work it out themselves. I see no reason why they'd not extend this to other units, it would just be simplification of the interface.
you dont even have to push shift...if you have all your DA's selected and they all have energy and you select to Mind Control one unit only one will MC it then mc another and another will mc it etc.
Well of course, you can't mind control your own unit after all.
I completly agree with everything you say there. However dont you agree that how hard the controls are doesnt equal the hand dexterity required. If you put SC2s controlls into BW then that would obviously be a bad things since like you say the BW already has the right amount of hand dexterity required. However what if the difference between SC2s and BWs amount of "potential micro" is just as big as the inverse differance in ease of control. Wouldnt that make SC2 have the right amount of hand dexterity required while also enabling new players to do some cool things?
whether apm taking the form of multitasking entirely, instead of the difficulty of a lesser number of tasks which could more easily fit onto one screen, and be more comprehensible somewhat, turns out to be as observable is to be seen i guess. all in all the game doesn't sound that bad i think, as long as they stick to what nony just said about applying blizzard's montra to hand dexterity. It will be very different though, just like warcraft 2 and warcraft 3 in my opinion from broodwar, very interesting and cool and respectable but none a replacement of another. i mean looking at it this way, i dont' see why anyone would want to switch from broodwar to sc2 except because of a better matchmaking system and such things and higher newb-friendliness. and nicer graphics. we should really play all the games at once or devote purely on gameplay preference imo, like athletic people do with soccer/football/basketball, etc. It's just a shame the games are never released to fix simple things like userbase, ladder system, maybe graphics, without touching the ui or gameplay. that videogames get old and semi-die is a real shame and product of a profit driven society.
On August 06 2007 20:28 Zanno wrote: war3 is not that spectacular because you only have 1-3 units that have moves that require heavy spell micro
if you could control 12 demon hunters, archmagi, death knights, the game would have had a lot more room for pimp plays
QFT. And the huge amount of spells on the non-heroes in War3 were buffs/debuffs (right?)... which made them all sort of the same and not as exciting. Plus things never died fast.
On August 07 2007 12:26 FlyingHamsta wrote: The pros will still be better than you.
of course they will. that's not all that matters though. if people played life on a professional level, they'd be better than me, but i still might not appretiate their skill. what kind of skills should be emphasized in a certain type of game is what was being discussed. To each their own but broodwar is a really important game in a couple ways and there are reasons why it shouldn't be too different from the original.
Main thing I'm worried about is keeping it fun. A lot of the UI improvements will be fine, I think. If I don't have to re-control group 10 barracks every 30 seconds to re-rally, and then re-control group my men in between, I will be happy.
But some things seem like they could be too much. Smart casting/cloning seems like it could be taking something away from the game. I'm not adamant about it, b/c I haven't played SC2 yet... but I probably should be reinstalling war3 to test it so I cant rant better.
On August 07 2007 12:26 FlyingHamsta wrote: The pros will still be better than you.
of course they will. that's not all that matters though. if people played life on a professional level, they'd be better than me, but i still might not appretiate their skill. what kind of skills should be emphasized in a certain type of game is what was being discussed. To each their own but broodwar is a really important game in a couple ways and there are reasons why it shouldn't be too different from the original.
There will still be extremely micro intensive abilities on each side that will seperate good from the noob. For example, phase prisms is a big one. You gonna select all 8 of your phase prisms and order them all to turn into pylon power? No, you'll need excellent micro. Even warp in only allows 1 unit queue, so people who excel at micro will be able to utilize that to its fullest.
Stalkers vs Zealots. Noobs will undoubtedly lose vs zealots with stalkers every matchup. That's just the way it is, because he'll blink them all and accomplish nothing but give a 1 second gap or something between the stalkers and charging zealots. Meanwhile a pro player will only blink back the front stalkers, and kite using that method to kill the new charging zealots almost in the same fashion as dragoons used to, except much more stylishly.
What do you think the War2 pros said when they realized the UI enhancements of SC? "Wow this is noob, now those noob sc players can catch up to the pros." UI's improve with each game, and I think it's quite premature to say pro games will be uninteresting. If anything I'm interested to see what the pros can do with such enhancements, and like I said before there will still be hard moves to pull off.
I 100% agree with Nony. I want the skill gap between pros and mediocre players to be huge. The skill level of pros should be easy to appreciate. And execution should play at least as large a role as strategy.
On August 07 2007 11:24 NonY[rC] wrote: BW has the right amount of hand dexterity required. If a BW game goes long enough, even the pros known for their perfect mechanics have to make decisions with regard to BW's third resource: time. The top players have to decide how much time to spend with each pressing issue, knowing that the issues ignored will suffer. A computer game shouldn't be built such that if you know what to do, you can automatically do it. That's a board game. For example, in Chess, or Risk, it does not take any skill to move a piece. Simplifying a computer game's interface to the point that the action on screen is just an extension of your thoughts is a big mistake. How much of your decisions actually come through on-screen should be mitigated by hand speed.
Purposely setting up the interface this way is not supporting an outdated or stupid interface, but rather it is perfecting what makes computer games computer games as opposed to sports or board games. All games require decision-making but sports also require physical fitness, computer games require hand dexterity, and board games require nothing in addition at all. A tennis player can decide to hit the ball into the far corner, but he can still fail if his body is not capable of such strength and accuracy. It would be silliness to alter the game of tennis in some way such that players are not limited by their physical capabilities. Tennis fans know that the strategical requirements and the physical requirements of the game are already well-balanced.
I say that BW has achieved balance because it is quite comparable to other very successful games. The popular sports in America, like football, basketball and baseball, are all successful at both the professional and amateur levels. If you watch professional games, the best players in the world still come up short in performance: an NFL receiver drops a pass, an NBA player misses a shot, etc. These mistakes exist and in similar frequencies in each sport. "Easy" moves still have a noticable failure rate, likewise "impossible" moves still have a noticable success rate. And despite the professional players struggling to achieve perfection, millions of amateurs still love to play. The professionals and amateurs form a mutual relationship. Professionals need fans and replacements, amateurs need someone to look up to and try to copy.
Setting up a mutual symbiotic relationship between professionals and amateurs is the best way to make a game successful and long-lasting. There is a formula out there among all the most popular games in the world (mostly sports) and Blizzard just happened to strike upon it with BW. With SC2, Blizzard musn't leave it to blind luck again. The execution of strategies cannot be made any easier in SC2 than they are in BW.
PS: Blizzard's idea of making a game easy to learn but difficult to master is exactly what this is about, partly. It seems that they want to make the execution of strategies easy, while formulating strategies will take a lifetime. This is not how to make a proper computer game, especially not the successor to BW. People don't want an animated board game on their screens. Other RTS's have been going that direction and their games hold interest for less than a year. The solution is for Blizzard to apply "easy to learn, difficult to master" to both strategy and execution. That is, it's easy to learn how to clone magic spells, but it's incredibly difficult to master.
More than that, I think the amateurs have to look up to someone that they know, with lots of luck and practice, they might become better than that current pro.
I don't know about you, but I wouldnt want to try going pro if I knew the best I could do was to be as good as the current top pro and never any better.
And I don't think I would play BW if there wasnt that weak hope that I could maybe do the impossible (as unrealistic as it is).
Maybe there is a way to set a ladder enforced switch for auto-cloning and other noob features? Like in a non-ladder game, its up to the player to go into options and enable or disable auto-cloning, but in a ladder match, the server overrides whatever they picked and just disables it.
That way noobs would still be able to play with their friends, it would take away some of the learning curve for very beginners, and would still force competitive players to try their hardest. Think of non-ladder games as a kind of kiddie pool - there are a couple options that you can choose to set in your favor: auto-cloning, easy-macro, auto-cast (for scv+medic), that will make the game easier to play. Since these would be player-side optional (changeable under the options menu), it would be up to the player in a non-ladder game to accept any crutches or computer help.
Then when he goes to the large pool (ladder play), fastest is mandated and auto-set for him (just for that ladder match), auto-cloning and auto-cast is disabled, or easy-macro is disabled depending on what the balancing progamers call for.
I really wish I could make sure someone from the sc2 team would see this, as I think it is the best way to allow both new and old players to be entertained, while still allowing a competive community without fracturing the community.
On August 07 2007 12:26 FlyingHamsta wrote: The pros will still be better than you.
of course they will. that's not all that matters though. if people played life on a professional level, they'd be better than me, but i still might not appretiate their skill. what kind of skills should be emphasized in a certain type of game is what was being discussed. To each their own but broodwar is a really important game in a couple ways and there are reasons why it shouldn't be too different from the original.
There will still be extremely micro intensive abilities on each side that will seperate good from the noob. For example, phase prisms is a big one. You gonna select all 8 of your phase prisms and order them all to turn into pylon power? No, you'll need excellent micro. Even warp in only allows 1 unit queue, so people who excel at micro will be able to utilize that to its fullest.
Stalkers vs Zealots. Noobs will undoubtedly lose vs zealots with stalkers every matchup. That's just the way it is, because he'll blink them all and accomplish nothing but give a 1 second gap or something between the stalkers and charging zealots. Meanwhile a pro player will only blink back the front stalkers, and kite using that method to kill the new charging zealots almost in the same fashion as dragoons used to, except much more stylishly.
What do you think the War2 pros said when they realized the UI enhancements of SC? "Wow this is noob, now those noob sc players can catch up to the pros." UI's improve with each game, and I think it's quite premature to say pro games will be uninteresting. If anything I'm interested to see what the pros can do with such enhancements, and like I said before there will still be hard moves to pull off.
Who cares about absolute noobs-vs-pros? A mediocre player could pull all of that stuff off.
How is one pro supposed to be any better than another? Strategy can only do so much
Well i dont have a problem with easy cloneing i kinda invite it the 2 things that I didnt like in wc3 was heros and the fact that every unit moves about the same speed.
So I invite it sure it takes away some skill but i'm sure it will help make battles more intense.
Like every game i'm sure there will be a line between what a pro can do and what can a noob do.
[QUOTE]On August 07 2007 14:17 FlyingHamsta wrote: [QUOTE]On August 07 2007 13:52 zobz wrote: [QUOTE]On August 07 2007 12:26 FlyingHamsta wrote: The pros will still be better than you.[/QUOTE] What do you think the War2 pros said when they realized the UI enhancements of SC? "Wow this is noob, now those noob sc players can catch up to the pros."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]On August 07 2007 15:13 Sr18 wrote: [QUOTE]On August 07 2007 14:17 FlyingHamsta wrote: [QUOTE]On August 07 2007 13:52 zobz wrote: [QUOTE]On August 07 2007 12:26 FlyingHamsta wrote: The pros will still be better than you.[/QUOTE] What do you think the War2 pros said when they realized the UI enhancements of SC? "Wow this is noob, now those noob sc players can catch up to the pros."[/QUOTE]
This is a joke, right?[/QUOTE]
I don't think so, believe it or not there was a huge wc2 community with pros who were following the production of starcraft almost like we are following the production of starcraft2, if I've heard correctly.
I find it aggravating that a lot of the newer posters to the forum are all for these simplifications of the famed SC UI. There is one statement that counters everything you have to say:
All of the so-called "improvements" will make cool feats of micro and strategy less impressive.
Done.
Now please quit posting.
I don't care that it will make it easier for YOU to do these things. I don't care about arguments that it will help sell the game to 12 year-olds who constantly complain about how the game sucks if they aren't pro at it immediately after installing the game on their computer. All I care about the creation of a game that has the appeal and longevity of the original SC. Making the moves that are considered top tier feats in SC more accessible is the completely wrong way to go.
All of the so-called "improvements" will make cool feats of micro less impressive.
changed it to be more appropriate.
It will only reduce the amount of micro thats hard to do, but will most likely increase the overall strategy used on the macro or mid levels -thats blizzards intention, not saying that it will occur if blizzard screw it up.
Personally I rather be impressed by overall strategies and counter strategies being used on the macro or mid level, than just the micro employed by a player.
Upgradeable autocast would be cool, at least I think so
Taking BW for example, you wouldn't have irradiate on autocast for the first 6 or so vessels (assuming autocast upgrade is expensive) but late game it when you've acquired a dozen vessels, it would be worth it to research it.
And autocast should be upgradeable for select units: marines (stimpack), vessels (irradiate), ghost (lockdown)
Also, there are downsides to autocast. In War3, I recall that humans would get owned by mass ghouls because they relied on sorceress slow autocast too much but they're not programmed to cast unless they're actually under attack. So UD players would move their ghouls *into* the human army and then attack.
An instance where autocast would backfire, I speculate, for SC2 would be a T with a cloud of vessels and Z running a swarm of zerglings to it and thereby triggering the vessels to waste irradiate on the zerglings.
All of the so-called "improvements" will make cool feats of micro less impressive.
changed it to be more appropriate.
It will only reduce the amount of micro thats hard to do, but will most likely increase the overall strategy used on the macro or mid levels -thats blizzards intention, not saying that it will occur if blizzard screw it up.
Personally I rather be impressed by overall strategies and counter strategies being used on the macro or mid level, than just the micro employed by a player.
The only way you could increase strategy is to speed up map rotations. Spoiler: Pros are pretty good on figuring out the best way to play a map
On August 07 2007 18:33 Heen wrote: Upgradeable autocast would be cool, at least I think so
Taking BW for example, you wouldn't have irradiate on autocast for the first 6 or so vessels (assuming autocast upgrade is expensive) but late game it when you've acquired a dozen vessels, it would be worth it to research it.
And autocast should be upgradeable for select units: marines (stimpack), vessels (irradiate), ghost (lockdown)
Also, there are downsides to autocast. In War3, I recall that humans would get owned by mass ghouls because they relied on sorceress slow autocast too much but they're not programmed to cast unless they're actually under attack. So UD players would move their ghouls *into* the human army and then attack.
An instance where autocast would backfire, I speculate, for SC2 would be a T with a cloud of vessels and Z running a swarm of zerglings to it and thereby triggering the vessels to waste irradiate on the zerglings.
auto-cast should be non-ladder only (if at all). It should be disabled for all ladder play
Further, it should be a global option in the option menu that the player can choose to enable for non ladder play.
Apparently autocast is limited to Heal (like BW) and SCV repair, at least according to some topic a couple weeks ago... Dunno what it was like at Blizzcon though
On August 07 2007 16:29 A3iL3r0n wrote: I find it aggravating that a lot of the newer posters to the forum are all for these simplifications of the famed SC UI. There is one statement that counters everything you have to say:
All of the so-called "improvements" will make cool feats of micro and strategy less impressive.
Done.
Now please quit posting.
I don't care that it will make it easier for YOU to do these things. I don't care about arguments that it will help sell the game to 12 year-olds who constantly complain about how the game sucks if they aren't pro at it immediately after installing the game on their computer. All I care about the creation of a game that has the appeal and longevity of the original SC. Making the moves that are considered top tier feats in SC more accessible is the completely wrong way to go.
Now listen you. Today. In SC:BW ladder game. Without all "so-called improvements". Can you repeat Nada's invulnerable marines/vultures? Can you reaver drop like Nal_rA or Stork? Can you dance with dragoons like Free? Can you perfectly flank like sAviOr? How Multiple Building Selection or smart-casting will help you to do so?
Do you ever had need to cast more than one Psi-storm/Plague/Sworm in one place? Do you ever had need to cast more than one Irradiate/Matrix at the same unit? Why there is option to do so then?
Chobo players have no problems with repeatedly clicking on Factories/Gateways. They have problem with doing it at the right time. Hosu players have no problems with cloning they have problems with casting spells at the right place, at the right time. Or do you think only few can use defilers like sAviOr or storms like Reach cause cloning requires a lot of skill? Do you know one of the reasons why almost no one - including micro-beasts like Casy and Nada - uses restoration to heal plagued units especially marines?
Use your brains to think before saying to someone "Now please quit posting" or you will look like arrogant idiot
On August 07 2007 16:29 A3iL3r0n wrote: I find it aggravating that a lot of the newer posters to the forum are all for these simplifications of the famed SC UI. There is one statement that counters everything you have to say:
All of the so-called "improvements" will make cool feats of micro and strategy less impressive.
Done.
Now please quit posting.
I don't care that it will make it easier for YOU to do these things. I don't care about arguments that it will help sell the game to 12 year-olds who constantly complain about how the game sucks if they aren't pro at it immediately after installing the game on their computer. All I care about the creation of a game that has the appeal and longevity of the original SC. Making the moves that are considered top tier feats in SC more accessible is the completely wrong way to go.
Now listen you. Today. In SC:BW ladder game. Without all "so-called improvements". Can you repeat Nada's invulnerable marines/vultures? Can you reaver drop like Nal_rA or Stork? Can you dance with dragoons like Free? Can you perfectly flank like sAviOr? How Multiple Building Selection or smart-casting will help you to do so?
Do you ever had need to cast more than one Psi-storm/Plague/Sworm in one place? Do you ever had need to cast more than one Irradiate/Matrix at the same unit? Why there is option to do so then?
Chobo players have no problems with repeatedly clicking on Factories/Gateways. They have problem with doing it at the right time. Hosu players have no problems with cloning they have problems with casting spells at the right place, at the right time. Or do you think only few can use defilers like sAviOr or storms like Reach cause cloning requires a lot of skill? Do you know one of the reasons why almost no one - including micro-beasts like Casy and Nada - uses restoration to heal plagued units especially marines?
Use your brains to think before saying to someone "Now please quit posting" or you will look like arrogant idiot
InRaged's post is really about enough to convince me that easy cloning is OK. When I remember all those close matches were the pros were unable to micro quickly enough and died were just sad. There are a few clear ways to fix this, honestly.
1. Reduce the game to Faster speed. 2. Simplify interface (Multiple Building selection, Easy Cloning, etc.) 3. Get rid of all the micro special abilities and make it an attack move only type game. 4. Play BW and live with the many errors executed even by pros, and just chalk it up to unreachable perfection (like better than a perfect 10 in gymnastics or whatever)
#1 would be my preference. #3 sounds terrible. #2 is the choice they are taking.
On August 07 2007 16:29 A3iL3r0n wrote: I find it aggravating that a lot of the newer posters to the forum are all for these simplifications of the famed SC UI. There is one statement that counters everything you have to say:
All of the so-called "improvements" will make cool feats of micro and strategy less impressive.
Done.
Now please quit posting.
I don't care that it will make it easier for YOU to do these things. I don't care about arguments that it will help sell the game to 12 year-olds who constantly complain about how the game sucks if they aren't pro at it immediately after installing the game on their computer. All I care about the creation of a game that has the appeal and longevity of the original SC. Making the moves that are considered top tier feats in SC more accessible is the completely wrong way to go.
Now listen you. Today. In SC:BW ladder game. Without all "so-called improvements". Can you repeat Nada's invulnerable marines/vultures? Can you reaver drop like Nal_rA or Stork? Can you dance with dragoons like Free? Can you perfectly flank like sAviOr? How Multiple Building Selection or smart-casting will help you to do so?
Do you ever had need to cast more than one Psi-storm/Plague/Sworm in one place? Do you ever had need to cast more than one Irradiate/Matrix at the same unit? Why there is option to do so then?
Chobo players have no problems with repeatedly clicking on Factories/Gateways. They have problem with doing it at the right time. Hosu players have no problems with cloning they have problems with casting spells at the right place, at the right time. Or do you think only few can use defilers like sAviOr or storms like Reach cause cloning requires a lot of skill? Do you know one of the reasons why almost no one - including micro-beasts like Casy and Nada - uses restoration to heal plagued units especially marines?
Use your brains to think before saying to someone "Now please quit posting" or you will look like arrogant idiot
in scbw ladder game. with all the improvements
can you macro like oov? can you clone irradiate 10 lurkers at the same time like nada? can u maelstrom like 2 groups of devourers spread out like reach? can you storm as accurately with all ur templars while trying to micro your other shit in a long PvP game?
hmm..maybe cuz restoration uses a lot of energy and its not worth the time to spend clicking on the few medics to restore a few marines while u could be macroing some more marines out or sending a dropship into an expo or something.
On August 07 2007 18:40 fusionsdf wrote: The only way you could increase strategy is to speed up map rotations. Spoiler: Pros are pretty good on figuring out the best way to play a map
yes the map plays a massive factor in it, but there isnt only one best way to play a map, thats why strategies in RTS games are so dynamic compared to certain type of games.
On August 07 2007 11:24 NonY[rC] wrote:PS: Blizzard's idea of making a game easy to learn but difficult to master is exactly what this is about, partly. It seems that they want to make the execution of strategies easy, while formulating strategies will take a lifetime. This is not how to make a proper computer game, especially not the successor to BW. People don't want an animated board game on their screens. Other RTS's have been going that direction and their games hold interest for less than a year. The solution is for Blizzard to apply "easy to learn, difficult to master" to both strategy and execution. That is, it's easy to learn how to clone magic spells, but it's incredibly difficult to master.
I definitely agree with most of what Nony is saying. I still think BW has some interface issues that any way you look at it are outdated.. But the big problem as I see with trying to make a game play easily/automated as possible and relying on strategical depth is that inevitably the strategy will be reduced down to common outcomes.
You look at Starcraft now and its hard to really call it a strategy game. Its a tactical game heavily influenced by your skill with the interface, it just happens to have a small group of players who have decent mechanics but spend a lot more time making strategies(Which I will call poker-like in nature despite my lack of familiarity with that game) and theorizing and manage to win based on that. They are the minority though and in most cases in the long run someone with superior mechanics will best them in overall wins.
Even if SC2 has twice the depth of Starcraft it will be figured out a lot quicker. Starcraft had a HUGE acclimation period that most likely no other RTS will ever have. People spent a long time coming to grips with everything in the game. But now everything that even moderately good SC players learned are quickly applied to all new games and you see games "figured out" within a year at which point the strategical players leave and the technical gods take over(I'm mostly thinking of WC3 RoC when I write this, but im pretty damn sure it applies to other games), and thats even with smaller player communities than SC ever had.
I think all changes are for the best as long as they are reasonable. Atm in SC even the best of the best cant play a flawless game, especially if its long one. You'll always see some idle workers, useless loss of units, weak micro in bigger battles etc. People tend to accept these things simply because they know its impossible to control everything and macro with given interface. With SC2 interface these things will be the difference between winner and loser. In addition, we'll probably see a lot more multiple simultanious attacks/flankings, far better micro which is always fun to watch, efficient macro will lead to more units - more battles - more strategy twists and overall much more impressive games than now. Anyways, we'll test it much more in beta ourselves rather than basing everything on slow motion WC3 gameplay or few hours of play in Blizzcon on some pre-alpha build against complete newbies.
On August 07 2007 16:29 A3iL3r0n wrote: I find it aggravating that a lot of the newer posters to the forum are all for these simplifications of the famed SC UI. There is one statement that counters everything you have to say:
All of the so-called "improvements" will make cool feats of micro and strategy less impressive.
Done.
Now please quit posting.
I don't care that it will make it easier for YOU to do these things. I don't care about arguments that it will help sell the game to 12 year-olds who constantly complain about how the game sucks if they aren't pro at it immediately after installing the game on their computer. All I care about the creation of a game that has the appeal and longevity of the original SC. Making the moves that are considered top tier feats in SC more accessible is the completely wrong way to go.
Now listen you. Today. In SC:BW ladder game. Without all "so-called improvements". Can you repeat Nada's invulnerable marines/vultures? Can you reaver drop like Nal_rA or Stork? Can you dance with dragoons like Free? Can you perfectly flank like sAviOr? How Multiple Building Selection or smart-casting will help you to do so?
Do you ever had need to cast more than one Psi-storm/Plague/Sworm in one place? Do you ever had need to cast more than one Irradiate/Matrix at the same unit? Why there is option to do so then?
Chobo players have no problems with repeatedly clicking on Factories/Gateways. They have problem with doing it at the right time. Hosu players have no problems with cloning they have problems with casting spells at the right place, at the right time. Or do you think only few can use defilers like sAviOr or storms like Reach cause cloning requires a lot of skill? Do you know one of the reasons why almost no one - including micro-beasts like Casy and Nada - uses restoration to heal plagued units especially marines?
Use your brains to think before saying to someone "Now please quit posting" or you will look like arrogant idiot
You're talking about examples that don't even relate to what I am talking about. There's sick micro in WC3 too and it has a more simplified interface than SC. So what's your point?
What I am talking about is the total package. I am not that good of a BW player for sure, but with these improvements I would be able to macro like a player that is 10x better than me because its so much easier now. All I have to do is make an SCV at each one of my expos and that's it because now I don't have to tell it to mine. I can mass build + rally in a couple clicks. Oh wait! Lurks are charging my marines! In BW I would have to go 1 click, 2 click 3 click 4 click to move them away, or if I want to attack it would be even more work. Now I can have 30 units (that's the latest word, I believe) hotkeyed to one key, so now its 1 click, 2 click. Yawn. This simplicity, overall, will allow me to focus more on micro. And, most players can micro well if that's all they are focusing on. In other words, the spectrum of execution for most things is being flattened, which makes other parts of the game easier. When you make competent or even above-average execution available to most players, the game gets more boring because there are less holes in your game to identify and fix.
On August 07 2007 16:29 A3iL3r0n wrote: I find it aggravating that a lot of the newer posters to the forum are all for these simplifications of the famed SC UI. There is one statement that counters everything you have to say:
All of the so-called "improvements" will make cool feats of micro and strategy less impressive.
Done.
Now please quit posting.
I don't care that it will make it easier for YOU to do these things. I don't care about arguments that it will help sell the game to 12 year-olds who constantly complain about how the game sucks if they aren't pro at it immediately after installing the game on their computer. All I care about the creation of a game that has the appeal and longevity of the original SC. Making the moves that are considered top tier feats in SC more accessible is the completely wrong way to go.
Yeah you've posted 1000 posts on this site, that makes your opinion more valid. Your statement counters nothing, it's a half-assed opinion that holds little value or substance. How do you know SC2, with these UI changes, will be less impressive to watch? Didn't the blogs already teach you there was a huge gap in skill at Blizzcon? Whether or not the game will be more or less interesting to watch, how the ##@$ would you know?
Bigger post count won't compensate for your shortcomings in other areas of your life, if you know what I mean. Peace
Ugh Blizzard please don't listen to these tards, keep the improved interface or SC2 is gonna be really disappointing. I think Blizzard is smart enough to keep it despite any amount of whining from hardcore players though.
On August 07 2007 16:29 A3iL3r0n wrote: I find it aggravating that a lot of the newer posters to the forum are all for these simplifications of the famed SC UI. There is one statement that counters everything you have to say:
All of the so-called "improvements" will make cool feats of micro and strategy less impressive.
Done.
Now please quit posting.
I don't care that it will make it easier for YOU to do these things. I don't care about arguments that it will help sell the game to 12 year-olds who constantly complain about how the game sucks if they aren't pro at it immediately after installing the game on their computer. All I care about the creation of a game that has the appeal and longevity of the original SC. Making the moves that are considered top tier feats in SC more accessible is the completely wrong way to go.
Yeah you've posted 1000 posts on this site, that makes your opinion more valid. Your statement counters nothing, it's a half-assed opinion that holds little value or substance. How do you know SC2, with these UI changes, will be less impressive to watch? Didn't the blogs already teach you there was a huge gap in skill at Blizzcon? Whether or not the game will be more or less interesting to watch, how the ##@$ would you know?
Bigger post count won't compensate for your shortcomings in other areas of your life, if you know what I mean. Peace
I can bash newbies in checkers too, but that doesn't make checkers as deep as chess.
On August 07 2007 16:29 A3iL3r0n wrote: I find it aggravating that a lot of the newer posters to the forum are all for these simplifications of the famed SC UI. There is one statement that counters everything you have to say:
All of the so-called "improvements" will make cool feats of micro and strategy less impressive.
Done.
Now please quit posting.
I don't care that it will make it easier for YOU to do these things. I don't care about arguments that it will help sell the game to 12 year-olds who constantly complain about how the game sucks if they aren't pro at it immediately after installing the game on their computer. All I care about the creation of a game that has the appeal and longevity of the original SC. Making the moves that are considered top tier feats in SC more accessible is the completely wrong way to go.
Yeah you've posted 1000 posts on this site, that makes your opinion more valid. Your statement counters nothing, it's a half-assed opinion that holds little value or substance. How do you know SC2, with these UI changes, will be less impressive to watch? Didn't the blogs already teach you there was a huge gap in skill at Blizzcon? Whether or not the game will be more or less interesting to watch, how the ##@$ would you know?
Bigger post count won't compensate for your shortcomings in other areas of your life, if you know what I mean. Peace
I can bash newbies in checkers too, but that doesn't make checkers as deep as chess.
Seeing as checkers has exactly the same "interface" as chess (or Go for that matter), that just proves that interface doesn't determine the depth or lack thereof of a game like some people seem to think.
So there is still doubters, meh I am sucks at explaining with words and even would I be good my english won't allow me to, so let's dive into magic world of kids math and common logic
Firstly basic question: Why certain players better with cloning or casting stuff like irradiate or matrix than others? Only one true answer - they have better mouse accuracy and that allow them spend less time for targeting.
x = time_for_one_target
In one group we can take maximum 12 vessels, with them we can irradiate 12 mutalisks - 24 targets. For this rare situation:
Time_for_casting = 24x
Let's say there are two competing players, one of them has twice worser accuracy and he spends twice as much time in same situation. His time_for_casting is 24x * 2 = 48x.
Players ratio is 48x:24x = 2:1 i.e. one player obviously twice worser than other.
Now is key phrase: All what smartcasting does is reduces number of targets twice. With smartcasting we shouldn't click at vessels. So now we have 12x for first, good player, and 24x for another.
Ratio is 24x:12x = 2:1
Their relation doesn't changed at all, one player is still twice better at this aspect, but they BOTH spend less time on microing units. Is it clear now why it called interface improvement? This is exactly what players have got from multiple unit selection
On August 07 2007 19:54 alffla wrote:
in scbw ladder game. with all the improvements
can you macro like oov? can you clone irradiate 10 lurkers at the same time like nada? can u maelstrom like 2 groups of devourers spread out like reach? can you storm as accurately with all ur templars while trying to micro your other shit in a long PvP game?
Oov is good at macroing not cause he clicks faster at factories. He just knows how to macro Macroing is not about clicking and I'm absolutely sure all top foreigners clicks as fast as oov. But macro is about attention and decisions. Players should: 1. Pay attention to supply level 2. Keep factories/gateways working all the time 3. Know when to expand and when to add more production buildings. It's basic for Zerg, but terran and protoss have problems there. Players with bad macro usually wait when they have enough resources to add 2 or more factories and if they haven't they just spend them on units/defence. In replays I saw players like Oldy, Whyte_ra, Advocate have problems with all three aspects. Other three your questions already cleared above, I hope.
hmm..maybe cuz restoration uses a lot of energy and its not worth the time to spend clicking on the few medics to restore a few marines while u could be macroing some more marines out or sending a dropship into an expo or something.
Probably one of the simplest rules in any board game, yet considered far more deep and complex than chess.
The point is, just because the game rewards differences in skill level, doesn't mean its deep. So your example of saying people were owning other people in SC2 at BlizzCon doesn't mean a thing.
In one group we can take maximum 12 vessels, with them we can irradiate 12 mutalisks - 24 targets. For this rare situation:
Time_for_casting = 24x
Let's say there are two competing players, one of them has twice worser accuracy and he spends twice as much time in same situation. His time_for_casting is 24x * 2 = 48x.
Players ratio is 48x:24x = 2:1 i.e. one player obviously twice worser than other.
Now is key phrase: All what smartcasting does is reduces number of targets twice. With smartcasting we shouldn't click at vessels. So now we have 12x for first, good player, and 24x for another.
Ratio is 24x:12x = 2:1
I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one. The difference between no easy cloning, and auto cloning is much larger than that. Pretend you have 1 player, as an average player, I assume he can dull out 12 irridiates withing 10 seconds(I know I can) While he is cloning the vessels he needs a screen length of at least 1.5 screens away to allow time for the on coming vessels. Now remember these factors, for they increase the skill by a large factor.
With auto cloning, the same player, can probably dull out 12 irridiates within only 5 seconds. Not only this, the screen length can be as low as only .5 screens away. Can't you imagine how easy this would be compared to no easy cloning. All it is now is click "i" and click away at whatever you want to die.
On August 07 2007 21:59 InRaged wrote: So there is still doubters, meh I am sucks at explaining with words and even would I be good my english won't allow me to, so let's dive into magic world of kids math and common logic
Firstly basic question: Why certain players better with cloning or casting stuff like irradiate or matrix than others? Only one true answer - they have better mouse accuracy and that allow them spend less time for targeting.
x = time_for_one_target
In one group we can take maximum 12 vessels, with them we can irradiate 12 mutalisks - 24 targets. For this rare situation:
Time_for_casting = 24x
Let's say there are two competing players, one of them has twice worser accuracy and he spends twice as much time in same situation. His time_for_casting is 24x * 2 = 48x.
Players ratio is 48x:24x = 2:1 i.e. one player obviously twice worser than other.
Now is key phrase: All what smartcasting does is reduces number of targets twice. With smartcasting we shouldn't click at vessels. So now we have 12x for first, good player, and 24x for another.
Ratio is 24x:12x = 2:1
Their relation doesn't changed at all, one player is still twice better at this aspect, but they BOTH spend less time on microing units. Is it clear now why it called interface improvement? This is exactly what players have got from multiple unit selection
This doesn't take into account that not having to re-click your sci vessels makes it so much easier to accomplish your hypothetical task that simple math doesn't really cut it. That inaccuracy comes clicking back and forth from sci vessel to muta quickly. Now you can just focus on irradiating the mutas. The difficulty is much lower, and will result in less player error.
Actually most of you are worrying about SC2 interface in SC:BW game play. Yes, if SC2 interface was in SC:BW, say 10 ghosts lock down 10 Carriers is nothing immpressive, cux pretty much you don\'t have anything else to do in the mean time. But in SC2 it will be different:
Say a Z vs P match: Z has a swarm of lings and hyra in the main battlefield and a bunch of mutalisks a little bit up north. P has some 15 zealots, 3 pheonix, 4 HT, 6 stalkers. _ a avg player will send in zealots to form a line with stalkers backup, storm 4 places at the line on the Z swarm almost at the same time. Cool ! Actually not !! In SC2, that\'s normal, that\'s standard. And he\'ll probaply lose because the Z will quickly retreat back out of the storms then comme back and overwhelm the P force while the Mutalisk FF and pick out the HTs and stalker form the North. _ a pro player will send the zealots to form a line, storm 4 places slightly behind the line at the Z swarm at the same time AND blink the stalkers to the back of the Z swarm to block their retreat route so most the Z swarm are trapped under the storms AND fly his pheonix to the North, form a triangle with the mutalisks in the middle and overload to kill all the mutalisks. All that happen just a few secs and the seemly underhand P stand victory over the overwhelming Z force. Bloody everywhere almost instantly and the crowd go nuts.
Can the avg P player in the example above think of the same strats to bring victory to his smaller force of Protoss ? May be yes. Can he execute it ? Definitely no. He just does not come up with this strats quick enough, he can\'t order his force fast and precisely enough. And it\'s just the same as SC:BW, many avg players think of lock down 12 Carriers with 12 Ghosts. They bring their ghosts, but they can not lock down as fast or as precise as the pro. Just that in SC2, it gonna be bigger, more strategic, require more quick thinking and fast execution at the same time and it must be precisely at the right time and right place. SC2 is different!!!!!!!
I personal think that the gap between avg players and pro players is even bigger in SC2 than SC:BW. And I also believe the reason why Blzz took out Lockdown and Irr. or rework these abilities is to ensure this gap. Easy to play, hard to master.
The point is, just because the game rewards differences in skill level, doesn't mean its deep. So your example of saying people were owning other people in SC2 at BlizzCon doesn't mean a thing.
Well, I'm not even really arguing one way or another, but the majority consensus seems to be against UI tweaks, and all I'm saying is that most of these fears are unfounded because the game is so far from completion. If the UI tweaks were taken and added to SC1, it would be a much more different game, and I would buy the argument that SC1's "pro moments" would be less appreciated because of that.
But SC2 is different. At least wait for the Zerg to come out, which is probably when they'll start to have some solid grounds on which to begin balancing AOE, to make educated guesses about the "noobification" of the game.
Well define easy because if you want say all your high templars to storm all at once you have to spam it now insted of selecting them all, there are+ and - to things haha why not turn this into a -.
Or say that changeing zelot has a cool down witch it proably does maybe not but then we could just bait all the zelots to change 1 unit and and make them waste it no such thing as easy micro. There is always somethign gained and loss with new ui
There are easy ways to make the game require more skill:
Increase the game speed. Micro and macro are now easier? Well... then you'll have half the time for the same tasks.
Larger map sizes -> making multiple fronts, not only viable, but a must -> game requires more multitasking. More expansions with less resources and mechanics like wall clumbing will also help with this and I'm sure they can think of more things with the same purpose.
I can only come up with two ways to increase the hand dexterity needed in the game. Either increase the skill it takes to preform one micro move or increase the number of micromoves/minute required to be good.
Blizzard have said that they are planning on doing the second and I see no reason not to believe them. Maybe the game hasnt reached that level yet (remember we are pre-alpha). But in the end does it matter much how the skill is added to the game? The only difference is that if you do it this way it will not only be hard to master but also quick to learn.
If BW was juggling with axes then in SC2 they have changed the axes to juggling balls. Its easier for new players to learn and do some cool tricks but that doesnt mean you cant change the game so that the amount of balls you have to keep in the air at a high level makes it just as hard as juggling with axes. If more people are able to try out and enjoy juggling then more people will learn to appreciate the skills of the pros with 12 balls in the air.
On August 07 2007 21:59 InRaged wrote: So there is still doubters, meh I am sucks at explaining with words and even would I be good my english won't allow me to, so let's dive into magic world of kids math and common logic
Firstly basic question: Why certain players better with cloning or casting stuff like irradiate or matrix than others? Only one true answer - they have better mouse accuracy and that allow them spend less time for targeting.
x = time_for_one_target
In one group we can take maximum 12 vessels, with them we can irradiate 12 mutalisks - 24 targets. For this rare situation:
Time_for_casting = 24x
Let's say there are two competing players, one of them has twice worser accuracy and he spends twice as much time in same situation. His time_for_casting is 24x * 2 = 48x.
Players ratio is 48x:24x = 2:1 i.e. one player obviously twice worser than other.
Now is key phrase: All what smartcasting does is reduces number of targets twice. With smartcasting we shouldn't click at vessels. So now we have 12x for first, good player, and 24x for another.
Ratio is 24x:12x = 2:1
Their relation doesn't changed at all, one player is still twice better at this aspect, but they BOTH spend less time on microing units. Is it clear now why it called interface improvement? This is exactly what players have got from multiple unit selection
This doesn't take into account that not having to re-click your sci vessels makes it so much easier to accomplish your hypothetical task that simple math doesn't really cut it. That inaccuracy comes clicking back and forth from sci vessel to muta quickly. Now you can just focus on irradiating the mutas. The difficulty is much lower, and will result in less player error.
Not just lower, the "gap" would be eliminated completly
Mass lockdowning, yamamatoing, cute stormeing etc.. is a nice flavor in bw, that doesnt happen all the time, whitch makes it even cooler when it actually does happen.. if it were to happen all the time it would lose its charm.
Well, one concern of mine is that many units seem to micro themselves, or have abilities that negate the enemy micro.
The colossus for example, perfectly switches it's death cannon to a new enemy unit right as it dies, effectively never wasting damage. Imagine if siege tanks or goons could do that. They'd be insanely more powerful. Ever had that 1 brave hero-of-war zealot take like 12 tank shells because he happened to be the first available target? Those 12 tanks will now all need to reload. If only the minimum number of them fired and the rest all drew new targets immediately, tanks would be so much more deadly.
Zealot charge I also find frustrating. Hydras can do fancy micro moves against zeals, as can terran infantry, and vultures are absurdly good at picking them off without getting hit. With zealot charge, they now instantly fly in, and close that distant immediately. If you try to run, they charge again. There was one gameplay clip of zeals vs stalkers. The zeals blitzed in, the stalkers blinked behind them, and the zeals charged again, effectively completely negating the maneuver.
It's also an ability that can make your dudes hard to control. If you have a blob of zealots chilling somewhere, and a much more powerful force comes, (an angry swarm of hydras or something), 1 shot from the enemy could trigger the whole group to charge, at which point running away will be almost impossible, as the hydras are right on top of you now. Had they instead just started running normally, you could grab them and tell them to retreat before getting mauled.
I sort of think abilities will be like how they are in wc3. You have 6 ghosts selected and, (assuming they have lockdown), you just click L + enemy, over and over again without reselecting anyone. They each pick a different target without firing twice at the same thing.
edit: Lol sorry, thought I was in the "too noob friendly?" thread.
I don't know if scourge are in the game but you would NOT be able to do the "autocloning" feature that you saw with the ghosts with scourge
The same for dropships, i doubt dropships will smartcast their unload, then again, i'm not too certain. Unloading isn't smartcasted in WC3 for zeppelins.
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.
On August 08 2007 08:38 Haemonculus wrote: Zealot charge I also find frustrating. Hydras can do fancy micro moves against zeals, as can terran infantry, and vultures are absurdly good at picking them off without getting hit. With zealot charge, they now instantly fly in, and close that distant immediately. If you try to run, they charge again.
NO THEY DON'T
Edit: Blizz aren't Idiots. They have WOW behind their backs. "Charge" has after use delay that won't let them spam this skill. And from videos this delay last for about FIVE SECONDS
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?
Why you should be able to select more than 1 unit. Why? Answer
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?
Firstly there is no lockdown in sc2, secondly it would be easy to just lower the range of lockdown to make it harder to use etc in order to balance it.
Also, why shouldnt people be able to use the abilities of their units? I mean, isnt it boring for casaul players to not be able to use all of the cool abilities since it takes to much time and he is better of controlling his production and the army instead? Even most pros are better of using the basic units instead of these, you have to be extremely good for ghosts to be worth it.
This is required in order to balance casters, otherwise casters will never be properly balanced if they dont improve the spell interface since the line between not worth it and overpowered is extremely narrow.
On August 08 2007 10:44 SuperJongMan wrote: Why shouldn't 10 ghosts lockdown 1 carrier when you tell it to? Why? Answer.
It's the definition of good interface. It shouldn't allow options which player will never choose. And more concretely, it shouldn't have options that have no purpose and moreover hurt player's game. When you send workers on mineral line they spread instead of sitting on one chunk, don't they?
On August 08 2007 09:48 Fen wrote: The ability to use spells to their fullest extent isnt something that should be requried by all players to make the game fun.
We arnt talking about using spells and abilitys to their fullest extent. We are talking about using them at all.You can balance the game such that all the abilitys in the game can be useful both on a casual level and on a professional one. Take the ability to stim your marines for example. Everyone can do this and it almost always makes the marines and medics more powerful when you do so. However to do it to its fullest extent you have to be boxer. Do you people just hate casual gamers or why dont you want the game to be balanced for everyone?
What you people seem to be forgetting is that the game will be as much easier for a pro as it is for a newbie compares to Starcraft. The newbie will be able to do a lot of new cool stuff that he couldnt do before because every single action takes shorter time to do. But the same is true for the pro. Things that we are used to see as good micro in Starcraft might not look as cool in SC2 but we will see new things that look just as cool as the old things did in Starcraft. What we should strive for isnt every single thing being as hard to do as possible. If that was what we wanted then why not go back to an even earlier and harder to control interface? What we should strive for is the total amount of potential micro to be atleast as high as in starcraft so that you can not possibly do everything you want to do and therefore time becomes the third resource. However the interface is only one factor here.
I want to quote a question asked to Dustin Browder during Blizzcon to show you what im talking about:
On August 08 2007 11:06 DrainX wrote: This is a question is taken from after the demos were shown at Blizzcon.
Question is asked at 44:16 in the video if you want to see it for yourself
Broodwar Fan: Starcraft by its self is a very popular multiplayer game. In with it a professional community. Thats because this RTS has the most innovative features and also allows the player to play out the battle to his will. You know, the most amount of Actions Per Minute. I think you guys have heard about that a lot. I was wondering how Starcraft 2s improved interface allows competetive gaming to progress, aspecialy the korean leagues and how does it affect the leagues in America?
Dustin Browder: I can definitely speak in terms of the interface improvements that we have. We have added obviously the interface improvements you have seen today. We have unlimited selection, rallying SCVs to minerals (auto-mining). [One thing we are hoping to add to the game ,we have done some of it already, is to show you some new tactics and strategys you can use with these units. An example is the stalker we the special blink ability that requires a great deal of micro to use effectivly. We have some examples with the zerg we havnt ruled out yet. Use of warp-in can be something that can be used in a verry clever micro kind of way. What we are trying to do is add a lot of new oppertunitys for player micro. Realy sort of go beyond the original starcraft. So yes, there are some interface improvements, but at the same time there a lot of more micro oppertunitys that realy give progamers a chance to show their skills.
On August 08 2007 08:38 Haemonculus wrote: Zealot charge I also find frustrating. Hydras can do fancy micro moves against zeals, as can terran infantry, and vultures are absurdly good at picking them off without getting hit. With zealot charge, they now instantly fly in, and close that distant immediately. If you try to run, they charge again.
NO THEY DON'T
Edit: Blizz aren't Idiots. They have WOW behind their backs. "Charge" has after use delay that won't let them spam this skill. And from videos this delay last for about FIVE SECONDS
Eh, not in the vid I saw. But your caps lock overrides mine, so I guess you win.
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?
Why you should be able to select more than 1 unit. Why? Answer
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?
Firstly there is no lockdown in sc2, secondly it would be easy to just lower the range of lockdown to make it harder to use etc in order to balance it.
Also, why shouldnt people be able to use the abilities of their units? I mean, isnt it boring for casaul players to not be able to use all of the cool abilities since it takes to much time and he is better of controlling his production and the army instead? Even most pros are better of using the basic units instead of these, you have to be extremely good for ghosts to be worth it.
This is required in order to balance casters, otherwise casters will never be properly balanced if they dont improve the spell interface since the line between not worth it and overpowered is extremely narrow.
I disagree, there is no need to balance something just because it's not often used.
I don't know about it being boreing for new players, i was new once, and starcraft was(and is) the best,most fun game I have ever played. I think makeing something harder to do - then seeing others do it; you want to do it yourself. and it adds to gameplay experiance, as you have an imaginary goal, "getting better". Or however you would word that..
Autocloning.. never heard that word befor, did you just make it up?
Smartcasting is: cloneing without haveing to de-select units while casting "spells". (what we are debating here;)
Autocasting is: spells cast without player input, area dependant thingy.
On August 08 2007 08:38 Haemonculus wrote: Zealot charge I also find frustrating. Hydras can do fancy micro moves against zeals, as can terran infantry, and vultures are absurdly good at picking them off without getting hit. With zealot charge, they now instantly fly in, and close that distant immediately. If you try to run, they charge again.
NO THEY DON'T
Edit: Blizz aren't Idiots. They have WOW behind their backs. "Charge" has after use delay that won't let them spam this skill. And from videos this delay last for about FIVE SECONDS
Eh, not in the vid I saw. But your caps lock overrides mine, so I guess you win.
Zealot charge lasts about 3 seconds and then have a ~7 seconds cooldown before it can be used again, so it hardly kills micro instead it adds a lot of micro to make the zealots charge the right targets and for the enemy to try to avoid the zones were the zealot charges by using small decoy armies etc.
I disagree, there is no need to balance something just because it's not often used.
Why? Lack of use in highend games means that its not worth it or people would use it, wich means that its underpowered. Making everyone able to use the abilities makes them a lot easier to balance since then they can assume that the units will use the abilities instead of assuming that the abilities will be to hard to be used in many situations wich is how sc balance works today.
The skill comes into play when a player uses multiple types of casters, i dare to say that noone will be able to micro stalker blink, HT storms and archon feedback at the same time to their full potential, and the whole scenario is unthinkable in sc1 since just casting spells with 1 type of caster is a heroic feat so you wont use multiple types in a single army.
On August 08 2007 08:38 Haemonculus wrote: The colossus for example, perfectly switches it's death cannon to a new enemy unit right as it dies, effectively never wasting damage.
Thats not exactly true. The beam wanders onto the next target so the recharge between each kill is longer if the next target is further away. This makes it important to move units attacked by the colossus away from the rest of your units and for the protoss to target units that are in tight formations. I like how unique the colossus attack is and I think it adds to rather than reduces the possible micro.
On August 08 2007 11:19 Haemonculus wrote: Eh, not in the vid I saw. But your caps lock overrides mine, so I guess you win.
Zealot charge lasts about 3 seconds and then have a ~7 seconds cooldown before it can be used again, so it hardly kills micro instead it adds a lot of micro to make the zealots charge the right targets and for the enemy to try to avoid the zones were the zealot charges by using small decoy armies etc.
If they leave hydras and burrow, micro vs zealots could be even funnier. Send couple hydras ahead of other forcing zealots charge and burrow them once zealots attack (:
I'm getting really tired of people assuming that the skill gap in a game like Warcraft 3 isn't large between pros, average players and noobs
It is! I can assure you. The very top players have been pretty much the same players for the past few years, I can't really think of any new players that have come on the scene that have risen to the very top (maybe a few Chinese).
What does this mean really? Well, if the gap was significantly smaller than BW (I agree it is bigger but that's because there's much more stiff competition in BW) then you'd be seeing many more players nearing the top of the skill level, where in reality like I said, very few people have gotten there
You can see this from all the tournaments and leagues that are played, there's always some new team in WC3L that just gets STOMPED on by the rest of the established players. Or you see the same players at the major tournaments and it's usually one of ~8 players that will win.
You don't see some random guy just all of a sudden beating Sky or Tod at a tournament :/
Sorry, maybe a pointless rant, but we see that War3 is an easier game to play, but it doesn't mean person on this site would have a chance in hell of becoming a top player unless they practiced hardcore for 6 months. There is a VERY large skill gap throughout the different tiers in War3, period. Saying otherwise means you are just making assumptions about it :/
On August 08 2007 04:02 lololol wrote: There are easy ways to make the game require more skill:
Increase the game speed. Micro and macro are now easier? Well... then you'll have half the time for the same tasks.
Larger map sizes -> making multiple fronts, not only viable, but a must -> game requires more multitasking. More expansions with less resources and mechanics like wall clumbing will also help with this and I'm sure they can think of more things with the same purpose.
I'd like to elaborate on this.
I agree. Making both micro and macro (via easy cloning/spellcasting, and multiple building queues respectively) won't noobify the game. It's true that the things we think are spectacular now, in SC1, will be standard and much easier in SC2. But it's not as if the pros will be sitting there twiddling their thumbs with their extra time. Newer, much more complex strategies will synthesize as a result of the more efficient interface, such as the ones hinted at by lololol.
The biggest difference is that spectacular feats may no longer be contained within the area of one screen.
Increased game speed has already been implemented. Reports from Blizzcon indicate that the "fast" speed of SC2 is as fast as "fastest" in SC1. You'll have less time to react to a drop in your base, for example, resulting in more destruction than before. Players will have to nullify the drop, recoup lost workers/buildings, and prepare a drop of their own (or some newer power move) while simultaneously managing the battle front.
My point is, the only way any game can be "noobified" is if any player who puts any real effort into the game can do everything he needs to do, and do it without mistake. This will not be the case with SC2, based on game speed alone. I have no worries about SC2. There will always be more to do.
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. 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.
This isn't real life, it's a video game. If it was going to be more realistic then you'd have things like marines being able to headshot a zealot killing him instantly, or your SCV's going on strike at one of your expansion.
Marines being able to headshot a Zealot - not with psionic shields, they aren't. Plus, Marines aren't trained for combat - they're just given aggression enhancers and a gun and sent out onto the field. Not 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. And headshotting Marines would be difficult given the thickness of their armour.
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.
On August 08 2007 15:02 rS]taCat wrote: Not 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.
their psionic brain stem thing is up there so i'd assume their brain is very close
All casual players can use psi storm or lockdown or any other spell. They are just unable to use the spell as effectively as a pro. Most, if not all spells in starcraft are cost efficient if done properly. Psi storm costs the price of a high templar and a the upgrade. (Dont know off by heart. Around 250 minerals 350 gas??) Yet this investment, if used well, can decimate groups of units. One psi storm can easily wipe out large groups of units that cost way more than the price of buying it was. By not making it easy to do, this investment becomes sort of a gamble against your own skill. The investment can go both ways. A noob might buy a bunch of hightemplar and then miss every psi storm before finally getting them killed by a zergling, and the pro might make the most out of that investment and have high templar with 50+ kills. If everyone can easily use spells, youve turned an exciting investment into another basic unit. How often do you see a zealot with 30+ kills?
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.
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
If spellcasters get "smartcasting" (where the computer decides the best spellcaster to cast a spell for us), then, by that logic, other units should also get similar computer control. For instance, Scourge #1 should automatically avoid targets (when attack-moving) that are already being targeted by enough other Scourge to kill that target, but if some of those Scourge die before reaching their target the computer control system should automatically give Scourge #1 an order to attack the target which it was previously told to avoid.
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.
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.
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.
I, personally, am confident that Blizzard has and is still considering this very issue as they're developing the game. As stated in the question-and-answer quote earlier in this thread, Blizzard's plan is to provide UI improvements while also adding additional things players can micro. If they accomplish this goal well, the result would be less mundance micro (i.e. splitting workers, having to instruct each new worker to mine, cloning/shift-clicking, etc.) and more meaningful micro (i.e. aiming storms, blinking, unit positioning, focus-fire, targeting particular units, etc.).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I've read every post in this thread, and ive come up with a question...
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?
On August 10 2007 19:51 Tiptup wrote: 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.
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.
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"
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
On August 06 2007 17:16 terranmetal wrote: Personally I think cloning adds a factor of skill to the game, this would just make 12 sci vessel irridiate seem much less impressive, or 12 ghost lockdown unimpressive.(Not saying that sc2 has sci vessels or lockdown)
Translation: average players will actually be able to use Yamato and sniping. The horror...
On August 06 2007 17:16 terranmetal wrote: Personally I think cloning adds a factor of skill to the game, this would just make 12 sci vessel irridiate seem much less impressive, or 12 ghost lockdown unimpressive.(Not saying that sc2 has sci vessels or lockdown)
Translation: average players will actually be able to use Yamato and sniping. The horror...
I could use Yamato cannons 'properly' when I first got Brood War and had to do that Dylarian Shipyards mission in the single player campaign. Of course, I couldn't do it to the extent that a progamer could, but it's not like using them is impossible. The distinction is between using them well and using them amazingly.
On August 14 2007 02:10 H_ wrote: I could use Yamato cannons 'properly' when I first got Brood War and had to do that Dylarian Shipyards mission in the single player campaign. Of course, I couldn't do it to the extent that a progamer could, but it's not like using them is impossible. The distinction is between using them well and using them amazingly.
Define "amazingly". Do you mean having each BC simultaneously take out a different target? That's the thing, it's how they're supposed to be used.
On August 06 2007 17:16 terranmetal wrote: Personally I think cloning adds a factor of skill to the game, this would just make 12 sci vessel irridiate seem much less impressive, or 12 ghost lockdown unimpressive.(Not saying that sc2 has sci vessels or lockdown)
Translation: average players will actually be able to use Yamato and sniping. The horror...
I could use Yamato cannons 'properly' when I first got Brood War and had to do that Dylarian Shipyards mission in the single player campaign. Of course, I couldn't do it to the extent that a progamer could, but it's not like using them is impossible. The distinction is between using them well and using them amazingly.
There is a difference though, on that map you only have a lot of battlecruisers and nothing else to do, and also your targets are the biggest and slowest units in the game wich also have extreme health compared to damage making it the easiest time ever to use the ability. I doubt that you could use them effectively at all during normal game conditions.
And as said before, most pro players dont use them either, just a selected few that are overpowered compared to the rest of the spells such as irradiate, storms and swarm. Other things are hardly worth doing even for the fastest players out there.
BW was perfect in evry possible way we all agree on that right?
wc3 and all the other " hey evry 5year old should be able to play this game ez!" games were not and are not even close to bw right?
why put carebear features of "failed" games(not talkin bout wc3 ) in the best rts ever?
evryone of you should be used to clone the hard way. u got to draw a line. where should it stop?
whats next? marines auto spreading/circling out vs lurkers cause the random 8 year oldwasnt fast enough and lost all his marines vs 2 IMBA lurkers? a "spread out" button for mutalisks cause vessels were to strong vs them? mass psi storms grillin evrything on in a huge 1 click evry second(which ofc wouldnt be a problem with the autorunoutofpsistormAI )? and ofc autoblind evry unit with detection around the medic. it only makes sense cause playing will be much easier for evryone and the weak players can use evrything to full potential too! it only makes sense! right? RIIIIIIIGHT?
BW is still the #1 RTS because of its balance and its simple but very rewarding controls. Multiple aspects of what made this game great and the most skill dependant rts ever made are watered down with changes like that.
Put such crap in for the easymode in singleplayer so evry 6 yr old can play thru the game. but keep it out of multiplayer.
(btw yes i playd quite some wc3 and liked it. but its a easymode rts for kids. after 4 weeks of playing i was lvl30++ getting bored in some battles with 90 apm controlling evrything without probs. the only thing that really limited me from winning sometimes was that i sometimes couldnt see wtf was going on. with air and mucho pewpews flying around i just couldnt figure out whats happening and lost. other then that the slow pace and the carebear macro together with carebear micro bored me to death.)
On August 13 2007 20:22 Zanno 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"
I'm psychotic, eh? Is this the opinion of a professional psychologist?
Either way, your approach to this issue is not that simple by any means. How do you think the closest unit with enough mana is chosen? A program must calculates this for you and then issue the final command on your behalf. Whether you like it or not, this is a tactical element of the game and one that I consider fun.
If you believe that smartcasting will not make spellcasting in StarCraft mundane and commonplace, then that's your opinion. If our desire is to simply make everything easy so we see it performed more, then Blizzard might as well just remove our need to perform any action at all. We should have programs play the game from start to finish for us. This way we would be sure to see every unit and ability in the game being used. I'm sure the game would be much easier to balance as well.
I agree that certain spells like Broodling were rare to see used. But I used it quite often. If anything, the spell itself isn't powerful enough in comparison to the price. That's the real reason it isn't used.
Hell, I'm not even asking that cloning be left as difficult as it is in StarCraft. I clearly want the interface itself to be smoother and be one that provides more information. I outlined what I wanted in the previous post. I simply don't want a computer program to decide which unit is the best unit to cast a spell for me as a pseudo improvement to the interface. Choosing which spellcaster should cast a spell is a fun tactical decision and the fact that StarCraft's cloning process made this so difficult was bad enough, I don't want a computer program to completely take this decision process out of my hands. I think that's a fucking boring solution to an interface problem and if you disagree with that assessment then I am forced to say that I think you're boring too.
Otherwise, I'm not even sure why you quoted my post since you contradicted none of the basic things I said. Oh well, it's an interesting issue and one that I am passionate about.
Define "amazingly". Do you mean having each BC simultaneously take out a different target? That's the thing, it's how they're supposed to be used.
How many people do you know of that can do that? That's part of why it's amazing, because it's incredibly hard to do.
There is a difference though, on that map you only have a lot of battlecruisers and nothing else to do, and also your targets are the biggest and slowest units in the game wich also have extreme health compared to damage making it the easiest time ever to use the ability. I doubt that you could use them effectively at all during normal game conditions.
And as said before, most pro players dont use them either, just a selected few that are overpowered compared to the rest of the spells such as irradiate, storms and swarm. Other things are hardly worth doing even for the fastest players out there.
I don't understand, you're just reiterating my point from a different perspective - which is that it is looks amazing and it is not easy to use the yamato to hit several different targets, and that SC2 is taking that away. There's a great NaDa replay I have of him using BCs to hit targets under swarm, it was awesome - now anybody could do it.
On August 06 2007 17:16 terranmetal wrote: Personally I think cloning adds a factor of skill to the game, this would just make 12 sci vessel irridiate seem much less impressive, or 12 ghost lockdown unimpressive.(Not saying that sc2 has sci vessels or lockdown)
Translation: average players will actually be able to use Yamato and sniping. The horror...
Last I checked, average players could use Yamato in BW.
Your post should read. "average players will actually be able to use Yamato and sniping as well as the pros. The horror..."
And yes, why should an average player be able to coordinate spellcasters as well as a pro? Why dont we add smart micro as well then if we want average players to be able to do everything like the pros? We could also completly automate macro, that way average players would be able to macro like the pros as well.
What makes a pro a pro? Simple, the fact that he is a lot better than the average player. The fact that there is no hope for an average player when they play against a pro. I stand as much chance as beating a progamer in a game of starcraft as I do beating a pro tennis player in a game of tennis. The difference is that no-one trys to get tennis changed so the average person can hit a ball just like a pro.
In competition, everyone should have their place. The difference between a noob and a pro should be massive, so as to allow everyone in between to have their skill level also a unique position. An example of this is in starcraft where we measure things in APM. A noob will have 40 apm and a pro will have 300 APM. The difference is massive, and everyone has their place in between. There is a meaning when someone says I have a 140 APM. And we can assume that they wont win against a 200 APM player because there is such a large scale in skill.
Automation features such as smartcasting, will reduce this range of skill, reducing the competative value of the game.
On August 14 2007 19:23 Fen wrote: Automation features such as smartcasting, will reduce this range of skill, reducing the competative value of the game.
Competitive value is important, but I think we can also say that some challenges are also fun, right? Even us average players can enjoy pulling off a difficult action sometimes and that's a more important reason to retain some of the cloning difficulty if you ask me.
Along these lines, the learning curve in StarCraft was one of its most amazing features. I've been playing it for almost ten years now and I still learn new, powerful things I can do! It's amazingly fun in this respect.
On August 06 2007 17:16 terranmetal wrote: Personally I think cloning adds a factor of skill to the game, this would just make 12 sci vessel irridiate seem much less impressive, or 12 ghost lockdown unimpressive.(Not saying that sc2 has sci vessels or lockdown)
Translation: average players will actually be able to use Yamato and sniping. The horror...
Last I checked, average players could use Yamato in BW.
Its hardly ever worth it though, wich is a huge problem. The thing is that spellcaster use has to be balanced for pros, and not even the pros use spellcasters a lot(Only ht, def and vessels), meaning that most of them will become completely useless for the less than pros in the sense that it takes way to much resources and time for it to be worth it.
Now they change so that the spellcasters are easier to use (note that its just easier and noncasters are still a ton easier to use than the casters) they can achieve a ton better unit balance than before giving the players more choices and also more strategical depth in all situations.
And lastly as i said before, casters are still a lot harder to manage than noncasters meaning that the average player will most likely have less casters than the better ones. A noob using storms will most likely just hurt himself with zealots autocharging into them or getting killed by siegetanks, the lethality and pace of the game is still extremely high so every second casting spells will cost you a lot in a combat situation.
I don't understand, you're just reiterating my point from a different perspective - which is that it is looks amazing and it is not easy to use the yamato to hit several different targets, and that SC2 is taking that away. There's a great NaDa replay I have of him using BCs to hit targets under swarm, it was awesome - now anybody could do it.
Yes your right, you dont understand. The thing is that unless you used the spells AMAZINGLY, the units werent worth it, wich creates the huge problem of having an extremely different balance in pro games compared to noob games.
Blizzard cant make a caster the counter to another unit in such a game due to it making the whole game extremely imbalanced in either the noob setting or the pro setting, meaning that they have to make the game quite shallow with bad internal unit balance. This is the reason we had the scout, bc, ghost, queen, valk, etc wich were hardly used, since there were no way blizzard could balance them without totally breaking one of the parts of their game.
Btw, wc3 dont got much skill difference but thats more beacuse you have to micro only ~10 guys, mapcontrol doesnt mean anything untill lategame and lethality is low.
On August 14 2007 19:08 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: BW was perfect in evry possible way we all agree on that right?
No. Bw is better than other rts, but far from perfection.
Klockan3, I bow to your talant for repeating same over and over again without signs of anger and every time trying to make different examples and arguments -_-
Yes your right, you dont understand. The thing is that unless you used the spells AMAZINGLY, the units werent worth it,
Bullshit, the only unit that "wasn't worth it" was a ghost, and even then they're not that hard to use. Battlecruisers and Templars (among the ones who will really be affected by this change) were absolutely fine, unless you had an apm of like, 20.
This is the reason we had the scout, bc, ghost, queen, valk, etc wich were hardly used, since there were no way blizzard could balance them without totally breaking one of the parts of their game.
That's great, but it has absolutely nothing to do with a thread about cloning. The reasons scouts, valkyries, and queens are never used have absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
Yes your right, you dont understand. The thing is that unless you used the spells AMAZINGLY, the units werent worth it,
Bullshit, the only unit that "wasn't worth it" was a ghost, and even then they're not that hard to use. Battlecruisers and Templars (among the ones who will really be affected by this change) were absolutely fine, unless you had an apm of like, 20.
So the countless amounth of players all saying that the bc isnt worth it are wrong? Sure, in noob play theyre fine since when massed they counter almost everything thrown against them, but then you dont even use the yamato. On non moneymaps you have to use the yamato effectively or the bc is totaly crap, and remember that noobs wont play on moneymaps anymore since theres a real ladder in sc2.
This is the reason we had the scout, bc, ghost, queen, valk, etc wich were hardly used, since there were no way blizzard could balance them without totally breaking one of the parts of their game.
That's great, but it has absolutely nothing to do with a thread about cloning. The reasons scouts, valkyries, and queens are never used have absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
How is the queen irrelevant, even if you only look at the units directly and dont consider how it would change the balance indirectly by affecting other casters? If brood were on smartcast in sc queens would be used a lot.
Also theyre all relevant for this thread, even the scout and valk, since they couldnt be balanced for both the pro play and the noob play meaning that they went somewere in between with these units. The scout is seen as strong by noobs, but in pro play theyre seen as weak since HT+shuttle is better in almost every situation, the valks are useless since iradiate vessels are better vs mutas wich is nearly the only thing you would want to counter with valks. Both of those units would totally break the balance in noob games if they were balanced for pro's.
So the countless amounth of players all saying that the bc isnt worth it are wrong? Sure, in noob play theyre fine since when massed they counter almost everything thrown against them, but then you dont even use the yamato. On non moneymaps you have to use the yamato effectively or the bc is totaly crap, and remember that noobs wont play on moneymaps anymore since theres a real ladder in sc2.
I've never seen anyone say a BC isn't worth it. They have 500 hp and they do 25 damage, not to mention I've seen them used by progamers in replays (that suggests they are indeed worth it). I'm not talking about moneymaps, because I haven't played them in years.
How is the queen irrelevant, even if you only look at the units directly and dont consider how it would change the balance indirectly by affecting other casters? If brood were on smartcast in sc queens would be used a lot.
I don't see very many replays utilising mass queens, even by progamers (who are the people who can utilise them to their fullest potential). Maybe if the queen had a consume ability they would be used more often, but that's an entirely different story.
Also theyre all relevant for this thread, even the scout and valk, since they couldnt be balanced for both the pro play and the noob play meaning that they went somewere in between with these units. The scout is seen as strong by noobs, but in pro play theyre seen as weak since HT+shuttle is better in almost every situation, the valks are useless since iradiate vessels are better vs mutas wich is nearly the only thing you would want to counter with valks. Both of those units would totally break the balance in noob games if they were balanced for pro's.
The reason Scouts aren't used is because they aren't cost effective at all. They do terrible damage to ground (8) and slightly-better-than-wraith-damage to air (24). Nobody sees them as strong, they're just bad all around because they cost 275 minerals and 125 gas, which could be spent on almost ANY OTHER UNIT and it would be better spent. Even noobs can do math.
Valkyries were designed to fill a niche that wasn't there - Terran anti-air. With Goliaths, Marines, Wraiths, and Science Vessels/Irradiate, there's really no room for Valkyries at all. The reason Corsairs work so well on the Protoss side is because, guess what, the Scout sucks (for the aforementioned reasons). The "balance between pro play and newb play" as you seem to perceive it does not exist. If it did, we would see numerous complaints about the units in question (Battlecruisers, Templars, Ghosts).. but we don't. Probably because they're simple to use well, but very hard to use amazingly. Which is where we (finally) get back on topic. SC2 is removing the emphasis on this 'amazing use of units' by allowing simple cloning. This is the final time I'm reiterating it. Obviously I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me.
On August 09 2007 20:09 Tiptup wrote: If spellcasters get "smartcasting" (where the computer decides the best spellcaster to cast a spell for us), then, by that logic, other units should also get similar computer control. For instance, Scourge #1 should automatically avoid targets (when attack-moving) that are already being targeted by enough other Scourge to kill that target, but if some of those Scourge die before reaching their target the computer control system should automatically give Scourge #1 an order to attack the target which it was previously told to avoid.
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.
This is a great idea! It would make micro more accessible while still taking considerable mechanical skill and letting the player have control over the units (no computer making decisions). If we want to convince Blizzard to not use smart-casting this is what we should be advocating.
Here's how I think it could work: There would be a key that when pressed it switches between "control group" and "subgroup". When you have a control group set up, you can then press this key and the number keys now become available to make and use subgroups within this control group.
For example: You make a control group of 12 Scourges at "3". While you have this group selected you press, let's say, "f5", switching to "subgroup" mode. Now you can assign your scourges to any number keys that you want. Then you press "f5" again and it switches back to "control group" mode and you can go back to controlling your other units and buildings with the keys that you assigned to them. Now whenever you need to "clone" the Scourges you press 3 then f5 and then 1 attack, 2 attack, 3 attack, etc... And you could do the same for Ghosts, High Templars, Science Vessels, etc, etc...
edit: This would also be interesting to use for controling buildings.
edit: And it doesn't have to work exactly like this, it was just an example of how it could work. I'm sure Blizzard can make it a more refined system with interesting features.
On August 09 2007 20:09 Tiptup wrote: If spellcasters get "smartcasting" (where the computer decides the best spellcaster to cast a spell for us), then, by that logic, other units should also get similar computer control. For instance, Scourge #1 should automatically avoid targets (when attack-moving) that are already being targeted by enough other Scourge to kill that target, but if some of those Scourge die before reaching their target the computer control system should automatically give Scourge #1 an order to attack the target which it was previously told to avoid.
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.
This is a great idea! It would make micro more accessable while still taking considerable mechanical skill and letting the player have control over the units (no computer making decisions). If we want to convince Blizzard to not use smart-casting this is what we should be advocating.
Here's how I think it could work: There would be a key that when pressed it switches between "control group" and "subgroup". When you have a control group set up, you can then press this key and the number keys now become available to make and use subgroups within this control group.
For example: You make a control group of 12 Scourges at "3". While you have this group selected you press, let's say, "f5", switching to "subgroup" mode. Now you can assign your scourges to any number keys that you want. Then you press "f5" again and it switches back to "control group" mode and you can go back to controling your other units and buildings with the keys that you assigned to them. Now whenever you need to "clone" scourges you press 3 then f5 and then 1 attack, 2 attack, 3 attack, etc... And you could do the same for Ghosts, High Templars, Science Vessells, etc, etc...
I really like this idea. F5 seems a little far away, but yeah, it would be like hotkeying 1 unit to a number, but having 100 numbered hotkeys. Still requires a degree of speed and precision, and the computer isnt doing the work for you.
Here's how I think it could work: There would be a key that when pressed it switches between "control group" and "subgroup". When you have a control group set up, you can then press this key and the number keys now become available to make and use subgroups within this control group.
For example: You make a control group of 12 Scourges at "3". While you have this group selected you press, let's say, "f5", switching to "subgroup" mode. Now you can assign your scourges to any number keys that you want. Then you press "f5" again and it switches back to "control group" mode and you can go back to controling your other units and buildings with the keys that you assigned to them. Now whenever you need to "clone" scourges you press 3 then f5 and then 1 attack, 2 attack, 3 attack, etc... And you could do the same for Ghosts, High Templars, Science Vessells, etc, etc...
I like it. It's an in-depth system that manages not to be too complicated, and it allows for greater control while still maintaining the level of skill required, and that's what matters. Nice idea.
On August 14 2007 21:59 H_ wrote: Which is where we (finally) get back on topic. SC2 is removing the emphasis on this 'amazing use of units' by allowing simple cloning. This is the final time I'm reiterating it. Obviously I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me.
Amazing use of units will still be there and will still be great to watch and will still feel good to execute, it just isnt required anymore for certain units to be worth it.
And internal balance wasnt good for starcraft, if they perfect that in starcraft 2 they have already added a ton of skill depth to the game that simply were lacking in starcraft. Sure, smartcast wont do it all on its own, but it surely will help together with every other change blizzard does to the game.
But anyhow, i have already won this battle since blizzard wont under any circumstances go back to a less userfriendly UI. They make games that are easy to play but have a ton of depth, making a game harder to play is against the whole concept of blizzard.
On August 14 2007 22:35 BlackStar wrote: Only reason micro works in SC and WC3 is because of the auto-AI of units. That is flawed.
If the UI is flawed and needs to be improved for SCII, why not the auto-AI as well?
Beacuse it removes more than it adds? It removes control from the player, and makes the units do things the player didnt tell them to do. The current UI improvements still requires the player to click for things to happen, he have to click to produce units, he have to click to cast spells, he have to click to move. Nothing is automated, every action made is decided by the player still.
Same as a toggle on buildings that would make it autoque units, it would remove player control over that feature and not make the game easier since in a game with limited resources it could kill the economy for you if you arent catious about it.
As stated above, I bow to Klackon's wisdom and patience.
On August 14 2007 19:08 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: BW was perfect in evry possible way we all agree on that right?
On August 14 2007 19:19 H_ wrote: How many people do you know of that can do that? That's part of why it's amazing, because it's incredibly hard to do.
Yes, exactly. And that's bad. It's bad, because what could easily be a powerful (and fun) Terran weapon, turns into a luxury even progamers can rarely afford.
On August 14 2007 19:23 Fen wrote: Your post should read. "average players will actually be able to use Yamato and sniping as well as the pros. The horror..."
Nah, pros will still be better. The bar is set higher for everyone, so the basic skills, that used to require a lifetime of dedication, are now available to all. Think of it as The Matrix, only without the Kung Fu virtual training. I mean, the hero actually goes to a Shaolin temple and lives there for twenty years. Sure, he comes back a bad-ass, but was it really worth it?
The way The Matrix actually was, you have people doing somersaults and tiger punches all over the place, but some are still infinitely better than others. The difference between the two versions is, of course, fun.
And for the last time, it's just a bloody game! It shouldn't require you to quit your job and dump your girlfriend to be any good!
Yes, exactly. And that's bad. It's bad, because what could easily be a powerful (and fun) Terran weapon, turns into a luxury even progamers can rarely afford.
No, you're completely wrong. It IS powerful (Dunno why you think it would be more fun to be able to click abilities. Wheeeeee ~), and it IS - and I emphasise this - it IS easy to use. I don't know how often you play SC, but almost anyone with 100+ APM (read: Anyone who has been playing for 2 weeks casually) can easily handle a fleet of Battlecruisers. Sure, they might not be able to use all 12 of them perfectly, but that's all the more reason to improve, right?
Nah, pros will still be better.
Of course they will, it's their job. The point is that it's harder to appreciate them being better because now everybody has access to the same tools.
The way The Matrix actually was, you have people doing somersaults and tiger punches all over the place, but some are still infinitely better than others. The difference between the two versions is, of course, fun.
Stupid analogy. In The Matrix the limits were defined by your mind only. This sounds more like Kwark's idea for a game than SC2. Using your hands is a part of SC, and only you want to remove that. I mean, do you even find SC fun? If so, why do you play? You keep talking about fun, but I don't see where the lack of it is, or how you hope to attain said 'fun' from UI improvements in SC2 (like clicking abilities. Awesome).
And for the last time, it's just a bloody game! It shouldn't require you to quit your job and dump your girlfriend to be any good!
Do you even play Starcraft or do you just complain on forums? It's not like the game is hard to play. Do you want pro skill handed to you on a platter in the form of a UI? Maybe we should just automate the game for you. Christ, that's such a dumb statement to make. Your definition of "any good" must be "a progamer", because I don't think anyone here has quit their job and dumped their girlfriend to attain a decent(read: less than professional) level of skill. Remember, the game has been out for 9 years. You don't have to have played it all day every day to be "any good".
Of course they will, it's their job. The point is that it's harder to appreciate them being better because now everybody has access to the same tools.
So your really complaining about the fact that you are so bad at seeing the difference between good and bad micro to such a degree that you need to see yamato shots or lockdowns to notice?
Uuh, they won't do anything more than they already do now. They would do it smarter.
Units already auto-target. They would just auto-target the enemy's unit that is almost dead. Not the one that is closest.
This would make unit behavior unpredictable, wich removes playercontroll to a degree. Also everything you guys talk about is not in any other rts games, while these UI improvements excist in almost every rts game made since wc3, its mainstream and is expected to be there. Smart cast doesnt pick wich caster to use, it picks the closest, just like autoattack attacks the closest. Both adds a tiny bit of automisation, wich doesnt remove playercontrol since its easily asumed that if a unit gets attacked it should fight back or if a group of casters is told to cast a spell they shouldnt stupidly waste all their mana doing so.
Yeah, it would remove micro. But the UI improvement removes macro.
Nah, it removes some mundane building micro and caster micro, telling each worker to mine is micro, telling each factory to produce 1 unit at a time is micro, going through a ritual before casting each spell with a caster group is certainly micro and fits an action game more than an rts.
I mean, do you even find SC fun? If so, why do you play? You keep talking about fun, but I don't see where the lack of it is, or how you hope to attain said 'fun' from UI improvements in SC2 (like clicking abilities. Awesome)..
Clicking buildings is fun to you? And for how smartcast affects playerskill etc, why not make the game even more skillfull?
Add a 1 time use grenade laucnher to marines, now you can do your spell casting ritual from the start! Then we can add a leap attack to zerglings, again limited use so you have to clone the lings. And make a charge to zealots without autocast!
Great, now the start of the game the better player will clearly have a great advantage simply beacuse his units is a lot stronger since h can click his abilities faster!
No, no no, clicking abilities as fast as possible is not a definition of rts skill in most peoples eyes, sure in sc overcoming the UI is a great part of the skill but what Blizzard tries to do is remove the UI obstacles and digg up what makes starcraft really great since the old UI is certainly not the reason why people play it.
So your really complaining about the fact that you are so bad at seeing the difference between good and bad micro to such a degree that you need to see yamato shots or lockdowns to notice?
So your really complaining about the fact that you are so bad at seeing the difference between good and bad micro to such a degree that you need to see yamato shots or lockdowns to notice?
Jesus christ, talking to you is pointless.
But why shouldnt players be able to choose to use their abilities when they like? Why should they have to go through arbitary rituals just to tell their units to do a simple task?
Your only answer is that its needed so that it gets more exciting to look at pro games since they can use abilities wich most others find to time craving to be worth it.
On August 14 2007 19:19 H_ wrote: How many people do you know of that can do that? That's part of why it's amazing, because it's incredibly hard to do.
Yes, exactly. And that's bad. It's bad, because what could easily be a powerful (and fun) Terran weapon, turns into a luxury even progamers can rarely afford.
Thats exactly what makes this good! These are the things th audience gets excited about and the the player can be proud of if he pulled it off correctly. Boxers Carrier lockdown is so awesome because not every noob can repeat it. Do you even watch SC vods or replays?
[B] And for the last time, it's just a bloody game! It shouldn't require you to quit your job and dump your girlfriend to be any good!
Perfect example of laziness. If you want to be good you have to practice!! If you want to be able to dance you have to actually spent time training to do so. People like you want the skill but dont have the ballz to actually DO something about it. Got owned too much on b.net recently?
Seriously thats what all COMPETITIVE sports are about. The more time you spent the better you are. There´s no easy way.
On August 13 2007 20:22 Zanno 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"
I'm psychotic, eh? Is this the opinion of a professional psychologist?
Either way, your approach to this issue is not that simple by any means. How do you think the closest unit with enough mana is chosen? A program must calculates this for you and then issue the final command on your behalf. Whether you like it or not, this is a tactical element of the game and one that I consider fun.
If you believe that smartcasting will not make spellcasting in StarCraft mundane and commonplace, then that's your opinion. If our desire is to simply make everything easy so we see it performed more, then Blizzard might as well just remove our need to perform any action at all. We should have programs play the game from start to finish for us. This way we would be sure to see every unit and ability in the game being used. I'm sure the game would be much easier to balance as well.
I agree that certain spells like Broodling were rare to see used. But I used it quite often. If anything, the spell itself isn't powerful enough in comparison to the price. That's the real reason it isn't used.
Hell, I'm not even asking that cloning be left as difficult as it is in StarCraft. I clearly want the interface itself to be smoother and be one that provides more information. I outlined what I wanted in the previous post. I simply don't want a computer program to decide which unit is the best unit to cast a spell for me as a pseudo improvement to the interface. Choosing which spellcaster should cast a spell is a fun tactical decision and the fact that StarCraft's cloning process made this so difficult was bad enough, I don't want a computer program to completely take this decision process out of my hands. I think that's a fucking boring solution to an interface problem and if you disagree with that assessment then I am forced to say that I think you're boring too.
Otherwise, I'm not even sure why you quoted my post since you contradicted none of the basic things I said. Oh well, it's an interesting issue and one that I am passionate about.
Yeah, you're fucking psycho. I'm not contradicting anything you're saying because I can't - you're talking in pure abstractions. Kinda hard to counteract your argument when all you're saying it "the game will be too easy!!!" for paragraphs with no examples to back it up. There are 10000 reasons that smartcasting can go wrong and here's two of them:
1) the templar with 243 mana happens to be the closest temp to the target, while your templar with 77 mana by the templar with 12 mana left and low shield is ignored
2) the closest defiler to the target happens to be under a swarm getting shot at. defiler in your group walks out of the swarm, splat T_T
On August 15 2007 00:41 Klockan3 wrote: Nah, it removes some mundane building micro and caster micro, telling each worker to mine is micro, telling each factory to produce 1 unit at a time is micro, going through a ritual before casting each spell with a caster group is certainly micro and fits an action game more than an rts.
This is a starcraft forum, in starcraft, macro actions are those actions which are not given to your army. Making building clicking and telling probes to mine minerals macro actions.
By the looks of your argument, you just want some flashy game with some nice explosions. If your calling spellcasting mundane, what is not mundane? Would you just rather let the computer play the game for you while you watch? No mundane actions at all.
EDIT: Id just like to add to this, that anyone who says starcraft game is about who can click the fastest has absoultly no idea what they are talking about. APM is actions per minute. Players with high apms are not just spamming, they are just playing the game way faster than you are.
So your really complaining about the fact that you are so bad at seeing the difference between good and bad micro to such a degree that you need to see yamato shots or lockdowns to notice?
Jesus christ, talking to you is pointless.
But why shouldnt players be able to choose to use their abilities when they like? Why should they have to go through arbitary rituals just to tell their units to do a simple task?
Your only answer is that its needed so that it gets more exciting to look at pro games since they can use abilities wich most others find to time craving to be worth it.
Why do basketball players work out their legs to jump higher? I think jumping high should be a feature available to everyone. Let's work on that.
So your really complaining about the fact that you are so bad at seeing the difference between good and bad micro to such a degree that you need to see yamato shots or lockdowns to notice?
Jesus christ, talking to you is pointless.
But why shouldnt players be able to choose to use their abilities when they like? Why should they have to go through arbitary rituals just to tell their units to do a simple task?
Your only answer is that its needed so that it gets more exciting to look at pro games since they can use abilities wich most others find to time craving to be worth it.
Why do basketball players work out their legs to jump higher? I think jumping high should be a feature available to everyone. Let's work on that.
No, this is totally wrong. Its more like:
Starcraft UI is like lead shoes on basketball players. It makes it a lot harder to jump and players who hasnt trained can barely jump at all.
Starcraft 2 UI removes the lead shoes in favor for lighter sport shoes, now everyone can jump but those that could jump before can jump a lot higher, meaning that strong leggs are still important but it isnt needed to play the game.
Imagine if everyone playing basketball would need to wear lead shoes? How many would play it casauly? Would it ever become a big sport then? Do people who watch basket on TV think "Gee, that guy can jump, it would be awsome if i also could jump" or do they think "Awsome how high the players can jump, and how accurately they shoot the ball and how well they play as a team".
EDIT: Id just like to add to this, that anyone who says starcraft game is about who can click the fastest has absoultly no idea what they are talking about. APM is actions per minute. Players with high apms are not just spamming, they are just playing the game way faster than you are.
Yes, this supports my argument, since you want to add unnececary clicks to the game such as having to go through your buildings wich is just a ton of clicking and you dont play the game when doing that, you play the UI, same as caster cloning, you click a ton just to execute a few thought actions.
What we will remove: The need to click a lot to be good at the game. What we wont remove: The need to think and play fast to be good at the game.
You will still need to be as fast as before in your decision making, you just dont have to click 3 times per spell or 2 times per unit rtrained anylonger.
It isnt me that want the number of clicks to be important, its you. Also by removing all these unnecesary clicks people will have to become faster, since each action takes shorter time to execute they will have to make more actions to compensate or they will fall behind.
But why shouldnt players be able to choose to use their abilities when they like?
This is not getting through to you at all. I don't think you've even read one of my posts.
THEY CAN. OH MY GOD. Have you EVER said to yourself "GEE I WISH I COULD USE MY YAMATO CANNONS RIGHT NOW, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE MY MICRO ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH TO HANDLE IT"? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt (I don't know why, because you don't seem to have any SC experience whatsoever) and say no. So there you have it, your point is null and void.
Battlecruisers are good units even IF, for some UNGODLY reason (because my micro isn't good enough to justify it, hurr hurr) you decide not to use Yamato Cannon. Now, I don't know if you know this - but Ghosts? *whisper* They can cloak. That makes it somewhat easier to do lockdowns, yeah? It gives you a window of opportunity to carry out whatever you want to do. The same goes for Battlecruisers - they don't have 500hp for no reason. If you're trying to argue maybe that Templars are too hard to micro (I hope you know storms don't stack), then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you should take up playing Civilization.
Why should they have to go through arbitary rituals just to tell their units to do a simple task?
Firstly, it's not arbitrary. Look a word up in the dictionary before you decide to use it. Do you think that the unit selection system itself is arbitrary? Of course it isn't. A lot of thought went into it, because that's what this game is about. You cannot be the best simply with strategy, you must have the hands to match it as well. That is one of the reasons why the game is amazing to watch and comprehend. That's why progamers have an APM of 200 or more.
Your only answer is that its needed so that it gets more exciting to look at pro games since they can use abilities wich most others find to time craving to be worth it.
Yeah, yeah, whatever. Keep reciting arguments that I've dismantled more than once.
To Klockan I never supported your argument, I only defined APM. A high APM is required because without it, the game becomes a simple game of strategy. In a simple game of strategy, there is always a 'best' option avalible to the player. If everyone can execute this option, then the only thing that defines good players is their ability to see this 'best' strategical option. Most people that watch a pro starcraft game know what the correct strategy is, the only reason they arent up their playing with the pros is the fact that they are unable to execute it.
By removing the difficulty of the execution, you'll end up with heaps of people who know what the correct strategy is and are able to execute the strategy, leaving the difference in skill between these players extremely low.
As for your basketball analogy, your wrong. The Ui is the way that you effect things in the game. In a basketball game, this would be your body. Now a truely basic UI, would mean you could select one thing at a time etc. This would be the norm. or in the basketball analogy, a player with just normal shoes. Every change to the interface which makes gameplay easier, is like adding things to the basketball player's body to increase his ability to play (maybe shoes with springs). However there is going to be a point, where it doesnt matter how much higher you can jump, the optimum height for the game has been reached. When you hit this point, upgrades begin trivial to the better players, but allow the worse players to catch up. So its like giving crapper people advantages so they can take on better people. Not good for competetition, because one person is better than another, but due to the limits of skill that one player can show, he is not recognised for it.
But why shouldnt players be able to choose to use their abilities when they like?
This is not getting through to you at all. I don't think you've even read one of my posts.
THEY CAN. OH MY GOD. Have you EVER said to yourself "GEE I WISH I COULD USE MY YAMATO CANNONS RIGHT NOW, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE MY MICRO ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH TO HANDLE IT"? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt (I don't know why, because you don't seem to have any SC experience whatsoever) and say no. So there you have it, your point is null and void.
Battlecruisers are good units even IF, for some UNGODLY reason (because my micro isn't good enough to justify it, hurr hurr) you decide not to use Yamato Cannon. Now, I don't know if you know this - but Ghosts? *whisper* They can cloak. That makes it somewhat easier to do lockdowns, yeah? It gives you a window of opportunity to carry out whatever you want to do. The same goes for Battlecruisers - they don't have 500hp for no reason. If you're trying to argue maybe that Templars are too hard to micro (I hope you know storms don't stack), then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you should take up playing Civilization.
Lol wtf, your arguments makes no sense. Firstly without yamato battlecruisers sucks unless you somehow gets around 20 of them. You know why? Beacuse they cost a ton, do extremely low damage per cost and are extremely slow. You know that a battlecruiser about the same dps as a crackling?
And ghosts have like no health and unless you fight noobs people will have detectors. Why do you think that theres only boxer using them? And sometimes he even waste so much time using lockdown that he would be better off macroing instead wich could cost him the game, this isnt what i call viable for noobs when it is barely viable for the best of the best against its primary target.
Why should they have to go through arbitary rituals just to tell their units to do a simple task?
Firstly, it's not arbitrary. Look a word up in the dictionary before you decide to use it. Do you think that the unit selection system itself is arbitrary? Of course it isn't. A lot of thought went into it, because that's what this game is about. You cannot be the best simply with strategy, you must have the hands to match it as well. That is one of the reasons why the game is amazing to watch and comprehend. That's why progamers have an APM of 200 or more.
Its arbitrary since it makes no sense forcing players to do it. Also i dont propose that we take out all actions needed, but having to click an unnecesarily amounth of times just to order your units is arbitrary. Instead of having a lot of unnecesary apm we will only have necesary apm, wich means that the game gets harder to play since you cant rely as much on automation as people currently do in sc1.
Fast cloning, either for building or casters, is just training reflexes to act faster, you dont train yourself to order units faster you train your reflexes to minimise the disadvantage the ui gives you.
Your only answer is that its needed so that it gets more exciting to look at pro games since they can use abilities wich most others find to time craving to be worth it.
Yeah, yeah, whatever. Keep reciting arguments that I've dismantled more than once.
You havent dismantled this. Pros will still be better than noobs, you agree on that. The game will still require skill, it will still be impossible to reach the skill cap, noobs dont play in leagues. As such how a noob plays doesnt affect the pros at all, all it affects is what i mentioned there: Your only answer is that its needed so that it gets more exciting to look at pro games since they can use abilities wich most others find to time craving to be worth it.
On August 14 2007 23:32 H_ wrote: No, you're completely wrong. It IS powerful (Dunno why you think it would be more fun to be able to click abilities. Wheeeeee ~), and it IS - and I emphasise this - it IS easy to use. I don't know how often you play SC, but almost anyone with 100+ APM (read: Anyone who has been playing for 2 weeks casually) can easily handle a fleet of Battlecruisers. Sure, they might not be able to use all 12 of them perfectly, but that's all the more reason to improve, right?
There's a difference between using BCs "perfectly" and just having the ability to use all of their Yamatos during combat. A pro will still pwn me with those same BCs, but it's a whole new field when special abilities are easy to use.
Of course they will, it's their job. The point is that it's harder to appreciate them being better because now everybody has access to the same tools.
Heh, if cloning is the most impressive skill a progamer has, maybe he's not really that good.
Stupid analogy. In The Matrix the limits were defined by your mind only. This sounds more like Kwark's idea for a game than SC2. Using your hands is a part of SC, and only you want to remove that. I mean, do you even find SC fun? If so, why do you play? You keep talking about fun, but I don't see where the lack of it is, or how you hope to attain said 'fun' from UI improvements in SC2 (like clicking abilities. Awesome).
The lack of fun is in having to rely on units like goons and zealots, if I am to make the most of my investment. "Clicking abilities" encourages investment into casters. Wheeee!
Do you even play Starcraft or do you just complain on forums? It's not like the game is hard to play. Do you want pro skill handed to you on a platter in the form of a UI? Maybe we should just automate the game for you. Christ, that's such a dumb statement to make. Your definition of "any good" must be "a progamer", because I don't think anyone here has quit their job and dumped their girlfriend to attain a decent(read: less than professional) level of skill. Remember, the game has been out for 9 years. You don't have to have played it all day every day to be "any good".
Of course I don't, it's so much more fun talking to you. Seriously, I'm simply a casual gamer.
On August 15 2007 00:46 H_ wrote:
Jesus christ, talking to you is pointless.
And I thought we'd never find common ground...
On August 15 2007 00:50 Senix wrote: Thats exactly what makes this good! These are the things th audience gets excited about and the the player can be proud of if he pulled it off correctly. Boxers Carrier lockdown is so awesome because not every noob can repeat it. Do you even watch SC vods or replays?
Yes and more often than not, the game boils down to extreme efficiency. Fancy shooting with secondary abilities is gravy.
Perfect example of laziness. If you want to be good you have to practice!! If you want to be able to dance you have to actually spent time training to do so. People like you want the skill but dont have the ballz to actually DO something about it. Got owned too much on b.net recently?
Seriously thats what all COMPETITIVE sports are about. The more time you spent the better you are. There´s no easy way.
People like me, if that is indeed your point, study in college, work out and try to lead an otherwise normal life. I have the ballz to DO something about a whole lot of things. However, allow me to repeat myself: SC is just a game. I don't want to be a pro, but I don't see how reducing the amount of practice time required for basic handling of your race can hurt anybody.
But if you aren't prepared to put your life into beeing good at a sport, then you SHOULDN'T be good at it. Note that it is still prefectly fine to enjoy and have fun WITHOUT beeing good. If you can't enjoy sc without beeing good at it, and are not prepared to saccrifice the necessary time to get good, then maybe you simply ought not to play?.
And klockan you do know that BCs aren't widely used not because yamato is a difficult spell to handle but simply because BCs are not cost effective right? Seriously about the only time BCs are good to get are stalemateish tvts (the other races counter them too easily but you knew that as well right?) and one does not need to be a pro to slowly yamato tanks. =P Same goes for queens they are not underused because decent and up players find it hard to clone broodling, but because spending 100 gas and then waiting for the fucker fo charge until 150 mana is NEVER EVER a cost effective way to kill a single unit. (Ok i might have to eat "never ever" but the principle stands)
One hotkey and pressing one button to produce units perfectly. One hotkey and pressing one button to produce workers perfectly, and they are even immediately starting to mine. Few hotkeys for units to control them all even if you're zerg. Smarter UI for better flanking and autocasting.
Have you ever watched war3 fpvod? As soon as a player gets some units, they start to control their army 90% of the time. It's FCKING BORING. What I play starcraft instead of war3 for is multitasking. Changing screen position every half second because you have a ton of the things to do is what I love the most about this game, and if it won't be in sc2, it better come out with something as addictive.
Seriously, what there is to control at sc2 atm? Workers are easy to manage, static defence capabilities are improved, for terran scouting became easier, for protoss - warping is availiable...watching for opponent's actions and microing your own army while making supplies are almost the only things I can think of, and I'd fall asleep this way.
So your really complaining about the fact that you are so bad at seeing the difference between good and bad micro to such a degree that you need to see yamato shots or lockdowns to notice?
Jesus christ, talking to you is pointless.
But why shouldnt players be able to choose to use their abilities when they like? Why should they have to go through arbitary rituals just to tell their units to do a simple task?
Your only answer is that its needed so that it gets more exciting to look at pro games since they can use abilities wich most others find to time craving to be worth it.
On August 14 2007 19:19 H_ wrote: How many people do you know of that can do that? That's part of why it's amazing, because it's incredibly hard to do.
Yes, exactly. And that's bad. It's bad, because what could easily be a powerful (and fun) Terran weapon, turns into a luxury even progamers can rarely afford.
On August 14 2007 19:23 Fen wrote: Your post should read. "average players will actually be able to use Yamato and sniping as well as the pros. The horror..."
Nah, pros will still be better. The bar is set higher for everyone, so the basic skills, that used to require a lifetime of dedication, are now available to all. Think of it as The Matrix, only without the Kung Fu virtual training. I mean, the hero actually goes to a Shaolin temple and lives there for twenty years. Sure, he comes back a bad-ass, but was it really worth it?
The way The Matrix actually was, you have people doing somersaults and tiger punches all over the place, but some are still infinitely better than others. The difference between the two versions is, of course, fun.
And for the last time, it's just a bloody game! It shouldn't require you to quit your job and dump your girlfriend to be any good!
But why shouldnt players be able to choose to use their abilities when they like?
This is not getting through to you at all. I don't think you've even read one of my posts.
THEY CAN. OH MY GOD. Have you EVER said to yourself "GEE I WISH I COULD USE MY YAMATO CANNONS RIGHT NOW, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE MY MICRO ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH TO HANDLE IT"? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt (I don't know why, because you don't seem to have any SC experience whatsoever) and say no. So there you have it, your point is null and void.
Battlecruisers are good units even IF, for some UNGODLY reason (because my micro isn't good enough to justify it, hurr hurr) you decide not to use Yamato Cannon. Now, I don't know if you know this - but Ghosts? *whisper* They can cloak. That makes it somewhat easier to do lockdowns, yeah? It gives you a window of opportunity to carry out whatever you want to do. The same goes for Battlecruisers - they don't have 500hp for no reason. If you're trying to argue maybe that Templars are too hard to micro (I hope you know storms don't stack), then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you should take up playing Civilization.
Lol wtf, your arguments makes no sense. Firstly without yamato battlecruisers sucks unless you somehow gets around 20 of them. You know why? Beacuse they cost a ton, do extremely low damage per cost and are extremely slow. You know that a battlecruiser about the same dps as a crackling?
And ghosts have like no health and unless you fight noobs people will have detectors. Why do you think that theres only boxer using them? And sometimes he even waste so much time using lockdown that he would be better off macroing instead wich could cost him the game, this isnt what i call viable for noobs when it is barely viable for the best of the best against its primary target.
Why should they have to go through arbitary rituals just to tell their units to do a simple task?
Firstly, it's not arbitrary. Look a word up in the dictionary before you decide to use it. Do you think that the unit selection system itself is arbitrary? Of course it isn't. A lot of thought went into it, because that's what this game is about. You cannot be the best simply with strategy, you must have the hands to match it as well. That is one of the reasons why the game is amazing to watch and comprehend. That's why progamers have an APM of 200 or more.
Its arbitrary since it makes no sense forcing players to do it. Also i dont propose that we take out all actions needed, but having to click an unnecesarily amounth of times just to order your units is arbitrary. Instead of having a lot of unnecesary apm we will only have necesary apm, wich means that the game gets harder to play since you cant rely as much on automation as people currently do in sc1.
Fast cloning, either for building or casters, is just training reflexes to act faster, you dont train yourself to order units faster you train your reflexes to minimise the disadvantage the ui gives you.
Your only answer is that its needed so that it gets more exciting to look at pro games since they can use abilities wich most others find to time craving to be worth it.
Yeah, yeah, whatever. Keep reciting arguments that I've dismantled more than once.
You havent dismantled this. Pros will still be better than noobs, you agree on that. The game will still require skill, it will still be impossible to reach the skill cap, noobs dont play in leagues. As such how a noob plays doesnt affect the pros at all, all it affects is what i mentioned there: Your only answer is that its needed so that it gets more exciting to look at pro games since they can use abilities wich most others find to time craving to be worth it.
basically you're a moron....the top half of your post you argue nothing for why we should have auto-casting or easy cloning but only argues that Terran units are weak...what does this have to do with auto-casting at all? its how blizzard made the game go play a crappy RTS if you can't get over this fact
*edit* actually go watch a movie because this will take out all the "arbitrary" actions of a video game that you seem to hate so much
On August 15 2007 02:45 Soulforged wrote: Have you ever watched war3 fpvod? As soon as a player gets some units, they start to control their army 90% of the time. It's FCKING BORING. What I play starcraft instead of war3 is multitasking. Changing screen position every half second because you have a ton of the things to do is what I love the most about this game, and if it won't be in sc2, it better come out with something as addictive.
You cant compare with warcraft 3 since the gamemechanics is built totally different, if it had starcraft UI it wouldnt be any different and they would still look at the army 90% of the time.
Seriously, what there is to control at sc2 atm? Workers are easy to manage, static defence capabilities are improved, for terran scouting became easier, for protoss - warping is availiable...watching for opponent's actions and microing your own army while making supplies are almost the only things I can think of, and I'd fall asleep this way.
Everything you control in starcraft, but its a bit easier to do. The only thing you skip completely is telling workers to mine.
because its a GAME* and not a movie?
Beacuse getting the same results as before with fewer clicks takes away the whole game? Nothing new is automated except for worker rally. You still have to click for each action, you still have to choose what action to click, you still need to be fast since there are still more things to do than any human can do alone.
Seriously, get a clue. It doesnt removes anything from competetive games except for the reflexive mouse movement needed to clone or the reflexive key spamming needed to build units, but it adds a ton to lower level games.
If you seriously believe that theres no skill left in the game then how comes a lot of people won all their games at blizzcon?
On August 15 2007 02:45 Soulforged wrote: Have you ever watched war3 fpvod? As soon as a player gets some units, they start to control their army 90% of the time. It's FCKING BORING. What I play starcraft instead of war3 is multitasking. Changing screen position every half second because you have a ton of the things to do is what I love the most about this game, and if it won't be in sc2, it better come out with something as addictive.
You cant compare with warcraft 3 since the gamemechanics is built totally different, if it had starcraft UI it wouldnt be any different and they would still look at the army 90% of the time.
Seriously, what there is to control at sc2 atm? Workers are easy to manage, static defence capabilities are improved, for terran scouting became easier, for protoss - warping is availiable...watching for opponent's actions and microing your own army while making supplies are almost the only things I can think of, and I'd fall asleep this way.
Everything you control in starcraft, but its a bit easier to do. The only thing you skip completely is telling workers to mine.
Beacuse getting the same results as before with fewer clicks takes away the whole game? Nothing new is automated except for worker rally.
Seriously, get a clue. It doesnt removes anything from competetive games except for the reflexive mouse movement needed to clone or the reflexive key spamming needed to build units, but it adds a ton to lower level games.
First off you're the idiot who needs to get a clue...if you know anything about Starcraft at all (which you obviously don't) You RARELY EVER look at your army its all about base and resource management you only worry about your army a small percentage of the time but you obviously have no idea how to play starcraft so it doesnt surprise me you don't know this. This is a main component of SC and should be a main component of SC2
Seriously, what there is to control at sc2 atm? Workers are easy to manage, static defence capabilities are improved, for terran scouting became easier, for protoss - warping is availiable...watching for opponent's actions and microing your own army while making supplies are almost the only things I can think of, and I'd fall asleep this way.
Everything you control in starcraft, but its a bit easier to do. The only thing you skip completely is telling workers to mine.
Eghm, by the looks of it, it requires like 90% less actions. That's what you call "a bit easier"?
You still have to click for each action, you still have to choose what action to click, you still need to be fast since there are still more things to do than any human can do alone.
Which "things" exactly? I can imagine only a few.
If you seriously believe that theres no skill left in the game then how comes a lot of people won all their games at blizzcon?
Being able to create an actually working build order ?
On August 15 2007 02:45 Soulforged wrote: Have you ever watched war3 fpvod? As soon as a player gets some units, they start to control their army 90% of the time. It's FCKING BORING. What I play starcraft instead of war3 is multitasking. Changing screen position every half second because you have a ton of the things to do is what I love the most about this game, and if it won't be in sc2, it better come out with something as addictive.
You cant compare with warcraft 3 since the gamemechanics is built totally different, if it had starcraft UI it wouldnt be any different and they would still look at the army 90% of the time.
Seriously, what there is to control at sc2 atm? Workers are easy to manage, static defence capabilities are improved, for terran scouting became easier, for protoss - warping is availiable...watching for opponent's actions and microing your own army while making supplies are almost the only things I can think of, and I'd fall asleep this way.
Everything you control in starcraft, but its a bit easier to do. The only thing you skip completely is telling workers to mine.
because its a GAME* and not a movie?
Beacuse getting the same results as before with fewer clicks takes away the whole game? Nothing new is automated except for worker rally.
Seriously, get a clue. It doesnt removes anything from competetive games except for the reflexive mouse movement needed to clone or the reflexive key spamming needed to build units, but it adds a ton to lower level games.
First off you're the idiot who needs to get a clue...if you know anything about Starcraft at all (which you obviously don't) You RARELY EVER look at your army its all about base and resource management you only worry about your army a small percentage of the time but you obviously have no idea how to play starcraft so it doesnt surprise me you don't know this. This is a main component of SC and should be a main component of SC2
Hi Gosuplayer, let me introduce you to fen, who dont belive that the game is all about basemanagement and that the new UI would make the game focus more on what build you use and less on micro, clearly the starcraft community isnt agreeing about this: (Also i never said anything about wich focus starcraft had, Strawman much?)
On August 15 2007 01:22 Fen wrote: To Klockan I never supported your argument, I only defined APM. A high APM is required because without it, the game becomes a simple game of strategy. In a simple game of strategy, there is always a 'best' option avalible to the player. If everyone can execute this option, then the only thing that defines good players is their ability to see this 'best' strategical option. Most people that watch a pro starcraft game know what the correct strategy is, the only reason they arent up their playing with the pros is the fact that they are unable to execute it.
By removing the difficulty of the execution, you'll end up with heaps of people who know what the correct strategy is and are able to execute the strategy, leaving the difference in skill between these players extremely low.
Hi Gosuplayer, let me introduce you to fen, who dont belive that the game is all about basemanagement and that the new UI would make the game focus more on what build you use and less on micro, clearly the starcraft community isnt agreeing about this: (Also i never said anything about wich focus starcraft had)
On August 15 2007 01:22 Fen wrote: To Klockan I never supported your argument, I only defined APM. A high APM is required because without it, the game becomes a simple game of strategy. In a simple game of strategy, there is always a 'best' option avalible to the player. If everyone can execute this option, then the only thing that defines good players is their ability to see this 'best' strategical option. Most people that watch a pro starcraft game know what the correct strategy is, the only reason they arent up their playing with the pros is the fact that they are unable to execute it.
By removing the difficulty of the execution, you'll end up with heaps of people who know what the correct strategy is and are able to execute the strategy, leaving the difference in skill between these players extremely low.
Well, sorry, but I completely agree with fen's quote and see no sense in your last post.
On August 15 2007 02:45 Soulforged wrote: Have you ever watched war3 fpvod? As soon as a player gets some units, they start to control their army 90% of the time. It's FCKING BORING. What I play starcraft instead of war3 is multitasking. Changing screen position every half second because you have a ton of the things to do is what I love the most about this game, and if it won't be in sc2, it better come out with something as addictive.
You cant compare with warcraft 3 since the gamemechanics is built totally different, if it had starcraft UI it wouldnt be any different and they would still look at the army 90% of the time.
Seriously, what there is to control at sc2 atm? Workers are easy to manage, static defence capabilities are improved, for terran scouting became easier, for protoss - warping is availiable...watching for opponent's actions and microing your own army while making supplies are almost the only things I can think of, and I'd fall asleep this way.
Everything you control in starcraft, but its a bit easier to do. The only thing you skip completely is telling workers to mine.
because its a GAME* and not a movie?
Beacuse getting the same results as before with fewer clicks takes away the whole game? Nothing new is automated except for worker rally.
Seriously, get a clue. It doesnt removes anything from competetive games except for the reflexive mouse movement needed to clone or the reflexive key spamming needed to build units, but it adds a ton to lower level games.
First off you're the idiot who needs to get a clue...if you know anything about Starcraft at all (which you obviously don't) You RARELY EVER look at your army its all about base and resource management you only worry about your army a small percentage of the time but you obviously have no idea how to play starcraft so it doesnt surprise me you don't know this. This is a main component of SC and should be a main component of SC2
Hi Gosuplayer, let me introduce you to fen, who dont belive that the game is all about basemanagement and that the new UI would make the game focus more on what build you use and less on micro, clearly the starcraft community isnt agreeing about this: (Also i never said anything about wich focus starcraft had, Strawman much?)
On August 15 2007 01:22 Fen wrote: To Klockan I never supported your argument, I only defined APM. A high APM is required because without it, the game becomes a simple game of strategy. In a simple game of strategy, there is always a 'best' option avalible to the player. If everyone can execute this option, then the only thing that defines good players is their ability to see this 'best' strategical option. Most people that watch a pro starcraft game know what the correct strategy is, the only reason they arent up their playing with the pros is the fact that they are unable to execute it.
By removing the difficulty of the execution, you'll end up with heaps of people who know what the correct strategy is and are able to execute the strategy, leaving the difference in skill between these players extremely low.
So you don't ever play starcraft seriously? that's hilarious in itself and basically makes any points you post void...secondly you realize that I said it was a *MAIN* component and not the *ONLY* component your post is absolutely retarded and I seriously think you should be banned from tl.net for being an idiot
On August 15 2007 02:45 Soulforged wrote: Have you ever watched war3 fpvod? As soon as a player gets some units, they start to control their army 90% of the time. It's FCKING BORING. What I play starcraft instead of war3 is multitasking. Changing screen position every half second because you have a ton of the things to do is what I love the most about this game, and if it won't be in sc2, it better come out with something as addictive.
You cant compare with warcraft 3 since the gamemechanics is built totally different, if it had starcraft UI it wouldnt be any different and they would still look at the army 90% of the time.
Seriously, what there is to control at sc2 atm? Workers are easy to manage, static defence capabilities are improved, for terran scouting became easier, for protoss - warping is availiable...watching for opponent's actions and microing your own army while making supplies are almost the only things I can think of, and I'd fall asleep this way.
Everything you control in starcraft, but its a bit easier to do. The only thing you skip completely is telling workers to mine.
because its a GAME* and not a movie?
Beacuse getting the same results as before with fewer clicks takes away the whole game? Nothing new is automated except for worker rally.
Seriously, get a clue. It doesnt removes anything from competetive games except for the reflexive mouse movement needed to clone or the reflexive key spamming needed to build units, but it adds a ton to lower level games.
First off you're the idiot who needs to get a clue...if you know anything about Starcraft at all (which you obviously don't) You RARELY EVER look at your army its all about base and resource management you only worry about your army a small percentage of the time but you obviously have no idea how to play starcraft so it doesnt surprise me you don't know this. This is a main component of SC and should be a main component of SC2
Hi Gosuplayer, let me introduce you to fen, who dont belive that the game is all about basemanagement and that the new UI would make the game focus more on what build you use and less on micro, clearly the starcraft community isnt agreeing about this: (Also i never said anything about wich focus starcraft had, Strawman much?)
On August 15 2007 01:22 Fen wrote: To Klockan I never supported your argument, I only defined APM. A high APM is required because without it, the game becomes a simple game of strategy. In a simple game of strategy, there is always a 'best' option avalible to the player. If everyone can execute this option, then the only thing that defines good players is their ability to see this 'best' strategical option. Most people that watch a pro starcraft game know what the correct strategy is, the only reason they arent up their playing with the pros is the fact that they are unable to execute it.
By removing the difficulty of the execution, you'll end up with heaps of people who know what the correct strategy is and are able to execute the strategy, leaving the difference in skill between these players extremely low.
So you don't ever play starcraft seriously? that's hilarious in itself and basically makes any points you post void...secondly you realize that I said it was a *MAIN* component and not the *ONLY* component your post is absolutely retarded and I seriously think you should be banned from tl.net for being an idiot
Ok, so you said it was 90% of the game, then its basically the whole game, wich isnt true i know but you said 90%. I have watched fpvods, in the begining yeah its close to 90% but more around 70-80%, and later it goes down to maybe 25% production and the rest unit control.
And for being an idiot, it isnt me that assumes things and attack others based on my assumptions.
Think before you write next time, if its so far from truth like that macro statement its kinda damn saed if you really thought that it was true.
On August 06 2007 18:35 Nintu wrote: There is a certain amount of appreciation when watching Boxer lock down 10 carriers so fluidly, knowing that only a pro can execute it so proficiently. There is also a certain amount of pride you have when you perfectly execute a complicated micro/clone/cast moment. Now that everyone who picks up the game at future shop can go home ad perform that, really irks me. I've been as optimistic as anyone about SC2, but I keep hearing how easy macro is now, it just bothers me. People with 80 apm will have just as much control as Nada if they make the game too easy. Now Micro is super easy? Starting to get uncomfortable.
Agreed.
This auto-cloning stuff sounds like bullshit to me. Starcraft is supposed to be a hard game, not only strategically but physically as well. It shouldn't be easy to pull off serious cloning
On August 15 2007 02:45 Soulforged wrote: Have you ever watched war3 fpvod? As soon as a player gets some units, they start to control their army 90% of the time. It's FCKING BORING. What I play starcraft instead of war3 is multitasking. Changing screen position every half second because you have a ton of the things to do is what I love the most about this game, and if it won't be in sc2, it better come out with something as addictive.
You cant compare with warcraft 3 since the gamemechanics is built totally different, if it had starcraft UI it wouldnt be any different and they would still look at the army 90% of the time.
Seriously, what there is to control at sc2 atm? Workers are easy to manage, static defence capabilities are improved, for terran scouting became easier, for protoss - warping is availiable...watching for opponent's actions and microing your own army while making supplies are almost the only things I can think of, and I'd fall asleep this way.
Everything you control in starcraft, but its a bit easier to do. The only thing you skip completely is telling workers to mine.
because its a GAME* and not a movie?
Beacuse getting the same results as before with fewer clicks takes away the whole game? Nothing new is automated except for worker rally.
Seriously, get a clue. It doesnt removes anything from competetive games except for the reflexive mouse movement needed to clone or the reflexive key spamming needed to build units, but it adds a ton to lower level games.
First off you're the idiot who needs to get a clue...if you know anything about Starcraft at all (which you obviously don't) You RARELY EVER look at your army its all about base and resource management you only worry about your army a small percentage of the time but you obviously have no idea how to play starcraft so it doesnt surprise me you don't know this. This is a main component of SC and should be a main component of SC2
Hi Gosuplayer, let me introduce you to fen, who dont belive that the game is all about basemanagement and that the new UI would make the game focus more on what build you use and less on micro, clearly the starcraft community isnt agreeing about this: (Also i never said anything about wich focus starcraft had, Strawman much?)
On August 15 2007 01:22 Fen wrote: To Klockan I never supported your argument, I only defined APM. A high APM is required because without it, the game becomes a simple game of strategy. In a simple game of strategy, there is always a 'best' option avalible to the player. If everyone can execute this option, then the only thing that defines good players is their ability to see this 'best' strategical option. Most people that watch a pro starcraft game know what the correct strategy is, the only reason they arent up their playing with the pros is the fact that they are unable to execute it.
By removing the difficulty of the execution, you'll end up with heaps of people who know what the correct strategy is and are able to execute the strategy, leaving the difference in skill between these players extremely low.
So you don't ever play starcraft seriously? that's hilarious in itself and basically makes any points you post void...secondly you realize that I said it was a *MAIN* component and not the *ONLY* component your post is absolutely retarded and I seriously think you should be banned from tl.net for being an idiot
Ok, so you said it was 90% of the game, then its basically the whole game, wich isnt true i know but you said 90%. I have watched fpvods, in the begining yeah its close to 90% but more around 70-80%, and later it goes down to maybe 25% production and the rest unit control.
And for being an idiot, it isnt me that assumes things and attack others based on my assumptions.
Think before you write next time, if its so far from truth like that macro statement its kinda damn saed if you really thought that it was true.
DUDE WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT YOUR THE ONE THAT SAID PEOPLE LOOK AT THEIR ARMY 90%!!! stop talking out of your whole for 2 seconds and read through the posts I swear you need to be banned
The only thing i said was base management was a main component period. stop confusing you're idiotic posts with my though through posts (other than the last one which i was just pissed off)
Wtf you both are talking about. It was I who said it(about controlling forces like 90% of the time) at first, and I said it about wc3, and after that I told that this way sc2 will be simmiliar to it, and that's why things like producing from hotkeyed buildings and autocloning sux. Chill out.
On August 15 2007 03:46 Soulforged wrote: Wtf you both are talking about. It was I who said it, and I said it about wc3, and after that I told that this way sc2 will be simmiliar to it, and that's why autocloning sux. Chill out.
On August 15 2007 02:45 Soulforged wrote: Have you ever watched war3 fpvod? As soon as a player gets some units, they start to control their army 90% of the time. It's FCKING BORING. What I play starcraft instead of war3 is multitasking. Changing screen position every half second because you have a ton of the things to do is what I love the most about this game, and if it won't be in sc2, it better come out with something as addictive.
You cant compare with warcraft 3 since the gamemechanics is built totally different, if it had starcraft UI it wouldnt be any different and they would still look at the army 90% of the time.
Seriously, what there is to control at sc2 atm? Workers are easy to manage, static defence capabilities are improved, for terran scouting became easier, for protoss - warping is availiable...watching for opponent's actions and microing your own army while making supplies are almost the only things I can think of, and I'd fall asleep this way.
Everything you control in starcraft, but its a bit easier to do. The only thing you skip completely is telling workers to mine.
because its a GAME* and not a movie?
Beacuse getting the same results as before with fewer clicks takes away the whole game? Nothing new is automated except for worker rally.
Seriously, get a clue. It doesnt removes anything from competetive games except for the reflexive mouse movement needed to clone or the reflexive key spamming needed to build units, but it adds a ton to lower level games.
First off you're the idiot who needs to get a clue...if you know anything about Starcraft at all (which you obviously don't) You RARELY EVER look at your army its all about base and resource management you only worry about your army a small percentage of the time but you obviously have no idea how to play starcraft so it doesnt surprise me you don't know this. This is a main component of SC and should be a main component of SC2
Hi Gosuplayer, let me introduce you to fen, who dont belive that the game is all about basemanagement and that the new UI would make the game focus more on what build you use and less on micro, clearly the starcraft community isnt agreeing about this: (Also i never said anything about wich focus starcraft had, Strawman much?)
On August 15 2007 01:22 Fen wrote: To Klockan I never supported your argument, I only defined APM. A high APM is required because without it, the game becomes a simple game of strategy. In a simple game of strategy, there is always a 'best' option avalible to the player. If everyone can execute this option, then the only thing that defines good players is their ability to see this 'best' strategical option. Most people that watch a pro starcraft game know what the correct strategy is, the only reason they arent up their playing with the pros is the fact that they are unable to execute it.
By removing the difficulty of the execution, you'll end up with heaps of people who know what the correct strategy is and are able to execute the strategy, leaving the difference in skill between these players extremely low.
So you don't ever play starcraft seriously? that's hilarious in itself and basically makes any points you post void...secondly you realize that I said it was a *MAIN* component and not the *ONLY* component your post is absolutely retarded and I seriously think you should be banned from tl.net for being an idiot
Ok, so you said it was 90% of the game, then its basically the whole game, wich isnt true i know but you said 90%. I have watched fpvods, in the begining yeah its close to 90% but more around 70-80%, and later it goes down to maybe 25% production and the rest unit control.
And for being an idiot, it isnt me that assumes things and attack others based on my assumptions.
Think before you write next time, if its so far from truth like that macro statement its kinda damn saed if you really thought that it was true.
DUDE WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT YOUR THE ONE THAT SAID PEOPLE LOOK AT THEIR ARMY 90%!!! stop talking out of your whole for 2 seconds and read through the posts I swear you need to be banned
Oh im sorry, i mixed up the posts, but so did you. I never said that you looked at the army 90% of the times either in starcraft so you can shut up as well, i said that if warcraft 3 had starcrafts UI it would still have 90% focus on the army, its the gameplay of warcraft 3 that is faulthy and not the UI of warcraft 3.
And currently no game have had the strategical depth together with speed and lethality of starcraft with any other UI than starcrafts UI, so noone here really knows how it will turn out. All we know is that starcraft 2 WONT go back to starcrafts UI and it will have a better UI than warcaft 3.
On August 15 2007 03:51 NeoIllusions wrote: Response, breathe man...
i cant handle this guy much longer i swear dude and i almost never get mad
Oh im sorry, you missread a post and then attacked me based on wrong information, and now its I that am annoying?
Then in my defense i missread, but its not that strange since your post didnt make any sense whatsoever.
how did I misread a post? You're an absolute prick you know that? you mis-quote me in you're post then blame me for misreading it? Stop acting like the martyr here you're an idiot and anyone with a brain can see this.
On August 15 2007 03:51 NeoIllusions wrote: Response, breathe man...
i cant handle this guy much longer i swear dude and i almost never get mad
Oh im sorry, you missread a post and then attacked me based on wrong information, and now its I that am annoying?
Then in my defense i missread, but its not that strange since your post didnt make any sense whatsoever.
how did I misread a post? You're an absolute prick you know that? you mis-quote me in you're post then blame me for misreading it? Stop acting like the martyr here you're an idiot and anyone with a brain can see this.
lol, you dont even know? Read your post again:
On August 15 2007 03:04 GoSuPlAyEr wrote: First off you're the idiot who needs to get a clue...if you know anything about Starcraft at all (which you obviously don't) You RARELY EVER look at your army its all about base and resource management you only worry about your army a small percentage of the time but you obviously have no idea how to play starcraft so it doesnt surprise me you don't know this. This is a main component of SC and should be a main component of SC2
On August 15 2007 02:45 Soulforged wrote: Have you ever watched war3 fpvod? As soon as a player gets some units, they start to control their army 90% of the time. It's FCKING BORING. What I play starcraft instead of war3 is multitasking. Changing screen position every half second because you have a ton of the things to do is what I love the most about this game, and if it won't be in sc2, it better come out with something as addictive.
You cant compare with warcraft 3 since the gamemechanics is built totally different, if it had starcraft UI it wouldnt be any different and they would still look at the army 90% of the time.
Seriously, what there is to control at sc2 atm? Workers are easy to manage, static defence capabilities are improved, for terran scouting became easier, for protoss - warping is availiable...watching for opponent's actions and microing your own army while making supplies are almost the only things I can think of, and I'd fall asleep this way.
Everything you control in starcraft, but its a bit easier to do. The only thing you skip completely is telling workers to mine.
Beacuse getting the same results as before with fewer clicks takes away the whole game? Nothing new is automated except for worker rally.
Seriously, get a clue. It doesnt removes anything from competetive games except for the reflexive mouse movement needed to clone or the reflexive key spamming needed to build units, but it adds a ton to lower level games.
Now tell me, how does your response fit into my post if you didnt missunderstoof the whole thing?
dude read you're sentence sorry i didnt include soulforged in my rant about base management... you both are saying that starcraft is 90% looking at you're army ( you are agreeing with him from you're post) so how did I misread this? You cant say from what you just BOLDED there that you don't agree that starcraft is 90% unit watching and this my friend is a totally false statement
*edit* reading soulforged's statement he is talking about warcraft 3 and it seems you switch the argument to starcraft unless i am readin this wrong
On August 15 2007 04:09 GoSuPlAyEr wrote: dude read you're sentence sorry i didnt include soulforged in my rant about base management... you both are saying that starcraft is 90% looking at you're army ( you are agreeing with him from you're post) so how did I misread this? You cant say from what you just BOLDED there that you don't agree that starcraft is 90% unit watching and this my friend is a totally false statement
*edit* reading soulforged's statement he is talking about warcraft 3 and it seems you switch the argument to starcraft unless i am readin this wrong
On August 15 2007 04:09 GoSuPlAyEr wrote: dude read you're sentence sorry i didnt include soulforged in my rant about base management... you both are saying that starcraft is 90% looking at you're army ( you are agreeing with him from you're post) so how did I misread this? You cant say from what you just BOLDED there that you don't agree that starcraft is 90% unit watching and this my friend is a totally false statement
*edit* reading soulforged's statement he is talking about warcraft 3 and it seems you switch the argument to starcraft unless i am readin this wrong
On August 15 2007 04:09 GoSuPlAyEr wrote: dude read you're sentence sorry i didnt include soulforged in my rant about base management... you both are saying that starcraft is 90% looking at you're army ( you are agreeing with him from you're post) so how did I misread this? You cant say from what you just BOLDED there that you don't agree that starcraft is 90% unit watching and this my friend is a totally false statement
*edit* reading soulforged's statement he is talking about warcraft 3 and it seems you switch the argument to starcraft unless i am readin this wrong
horrible thread I'll just add this little tidbit: There's a difference between a game requiring high APM to play, and a game requiring multitasking skill. Adding stuff for the sake of having more things to click on isn't gameplay.
I think the point of "adding more stuff" is about giving the game more depth in skill, allowing great players to truly shine. The dev team seems to share this goal, albeit in the micro area. I really like the direction Blizzard has taken with SCII so far.
I haven't read the entire thread so maybe someone already mentioned is, but why is the upcoming SC2 being judges in the quality of a spectator sport? I mean last I checked the majority of people find entertainment in the playing of games rather than in the watching of others play the game. What makes the best spectator sport doesn't necessarily make for the best game.
On August 15 2007 05:51 Hippopotamus wrote: I haven't read the entire thread so maybe someone already mentioned is, but why is the upcoming SC2 being judges in the quality of a spectator sport? I mean last I checked the majority of people find entertainment in the playing of games rather than in the watching of others play the game. What makes the best spectator sport doesn't necessarily make for the best game.
Spectator sport = Popularity = Profit = Professional players = Widespread obsession
It would be stupid of Blizzard to not put it high up in their priority list.
On August 06 2007 17:20 Kwark wrote: There is a degree of smart cloning in BW for example darchons with mind control. For high speed mass mind control you don't need to queue. Simply hold shift and tell them all to mind control each of the targets and they work it out themselves. I see no reason why they'd not extend this to other units, it would just be simplification of the interface.
On August 15 2007 06:36 Hippopotamus wrote: You think having 1998-esque controls will lead to profit in 2008?
Huh? What does that have to do with your question?
But answering this question, assuming you're talking about smart casting, yes and no. I don't think smart casting is a good thing, but I do think there is room to improve and add to the "1998-esque" controls. One way to do this, that I suggested before in this thread, is a system that allows the player to manually create subgroups within a control group, making "cloning" easier and so making things like Lockdown, Irradiate and Scourges more efficient to use. This creates almost the same effect as smart casting, but at the same time is an addition, not a detraction, to the mechanical skill and management aspects of the game. These aspects are a great part of the Starcraft experience and of what makes pros what they are.
With that in mind, yes, it "will lead to profit" because pros being able to do such things by their abilities, as opposed to the computer making choices for them, adds to their value as great players that are worth watching and emulating and worshipping, and therefore leads to profit.
On August 06 2007 17:56 MindpLay- wrote: I'm a wc3 player so I'd prefer an improved interface I don't think it will make pros make more spectacular moves, it will make the spectacular moves more common as it will be easier to do.
On August 15 2007 05:51 Hippopotamus wrote: I mean last I checked the majority of people find entertainment in the playing of games rather than in the watching of others play the game.
Not with SC. And if Blizzard wants to get as money off SCII as they do off SC then they need to make it a spectator sport.
Does anyone know how much money OGN and MBC play Blizzard to be allowed to broadcast SC?
On August 15 2007 04:18 GoSuPlAyEr wrote: well we can all agree warcraft 3 sucks too watch
I prefer watching wc3 over scbw, why?
scbw: first 20 minutes -> expanding, massing an army etc. (bullshit) wc3: 17 minutes -> long game
Half the time, in War3, you are watching someone either: 1) Neutral Creeping 2) Marching his small army of units around very, very slowly 3) TP'ing back to town to escape or defend 4) Massing towers at an expansion if he is playing Humans...
The following are simply not available, at least at a pro level, in War3 from the limited matches I have seen: 1) Flanking 2) Beating a larger army with a very small army with unit micro, including positioning, manual casting of abilities and individual unit micro, such as Marines&Medic versus lings with stim uses and medic blocking. 3) Proxy buildings, including tech, production and static defense 4) Macro across many buildings 5) Multiple Expansions, sometimes 2-3 at a time, especially for Zerg and Protoss
On August 15 2007 06:58 MoNKeYSpanKeR wrote: AUTO SCORGE CLONE!! + Show Spoiler +
Imba?
We don't know if there are Scourge in SCII. There could be, but we don't know that.
On August 15 2007 12:54 BlackStar wrote: Not with SC. And if Blizzard wants to get as money off SCII as they do off SC then they need to make it a spectator sport.
So basically, you're saying the game should be designed for progamers. Nice.
Does anyone know how much money OGN and MBC play Blizzard to be allowed to broadcast SC?
So basically, you're saying the game should be designed for progamers. Nice.
EXACTLY! Thats the point of COMPETITIVE games. Blizzard is balancing the game for the pros. Casual dudes get the flashy graphics to drool about. Nobody will give a rats ass about a game that every noob can play good. Just look at C&C3.
I think you should spent some time actually PLAYING Starcraft to get a grasp why this game is so awesome: 5 minutes to learn and a lifetime to master.
So basically, you're saying the game should be designed for progamers. Nice.
EXACTLY! Thats the point of COMPETITIVE games. Blizzard is balancing the game for the pros. Casual dudes get the flashy graphics to drool about. Nobody will give a rats ass about a game that every noob can play good. Just look at C&C3.
I think you should spent some time actually PLAYING Starcraft to get a grasp why this game is so awesome: 5 minutes to learn and a lifetime to master.
On a random side note, I went out and borrowed C&C3 off a friend recently to see what all the fuss really is about. And let me just say, Damn it really is as bad as everyone is making it out to be. I think I died a little inside while playing. Still, if your a Battlestar Galactica or House fan, you should def check the game out.
As for the topic, games have to be made for the pros, because regardless of how noobified you make a game, there will be hardcore people who are going to work on finding the best ways to win. And once these strategy are found, everyone is going to try and copy them. If the strategys turn out to not be balanced for pros, then the whole game comes falling down due to exploitation. If the strategies are not fulfilling for a pro gamer, interest is lost and the game once again falls apart. (theres only soo many times you can repeat the same strategy). Blizzard realises this, and will attempt to make the game challenging for pros, but still allow noobs to enjoy playing. So to Chodorkovskiy, YES games should be made for pros.
On August 15 2007 19:22 Fen wrote: So to Chodorkovskiy, YES games should be made for pros.
But, blizzard are smart and can balance it both for lowend players and highend players, wich makes the game enjoyable for everyone. This is their strong point, they cater to a very broad audience with their games.
They wont make sc2 a causaul game, they wont make it a pro game either, it will be a game for players of any skill level.
On August 15 2007 19:22 Fen wrote: So to Chodorkovskiy, YES games should be made for pros.
But, blizzard are smart and can balance it both for lowend players and highend players, wich makes the game enjoyable for everyone. This is their strong point, they cater to a very broad audience with their games.
They wont make sc2 a casaul game, they wont make it a pro game either, it will be a game for players of any skill level.
You cannot balance a game for all skill levels. Even Starcraft isnt balanced for noobs. Protoss is very powerful when your opponent sucks at micro. Terran and especially Zerg are hard for noobs to handle.
Are you afraid of SC2 being all about skill so you cant play with the big guys? Too bad looks like you will actually have to train to do your shit.
On August 16 2007 01:39 Senix wrote: You cannot balance a game for all skill levels. Even Starcraft isnt balanced for noobs. Protoss is very powerful when your opponent sucks at micro. Terran and especially Zerg are hard for noobs to handle.
Are you afraid of SC2 being all about skill so you cant play with the big guys? Too bad looks like you will actually have to train to do your shit.
I had no problems with starcraft, where do people get the ideeas that a person wich thinks that the game would be better off if its playable without training a lot would himself suck?
Do you really think that im just discussing all this on this forum in order to have an easier time beating pros?
Heh, actually, too bad for you-all. Blizzard wants SCII to appeal to the widest possible audience. I'm not complaining, I'm trying to ease you guys in.
Smart casting is not absolutely horrible, but I think there are better alternatives to it. For me this is a choice between: 1) Giving the player as much control as possible or 2) Letting the computer make choices for the player.
Smart casting does have a function: to make micro more accessible and efficient. But it achieves this by giving control to the computer, why not do this in a way that keeps the control in the hands of the player? Do it in a way that is both helpful to beginners as well as being an interesting tool for advanced players. It would not only be better game play wise, but also programing wise.
You can't discard the fact that real-time manual management of your units is a big part of Starcraft. It's part of what makes it interesting and what makes high level Starcraft great. Blizzard should be trying to keep to these roots and expand on them. I'm not saying that smart casting would completely ruin this aspect of the game, but it's something that detracts from it and so I don't think it's the best option.
Besides, Blizzard can show even more what made Starcraft great by taking an original path here. Smart casting is used in all these other games, but Blizzard can show that Starcraft isn't just any other game.
On August 16 2007 01:39 Senix wrote: You cannot balance a game for all skill levels. Even Starcraft isnt balanced for noobs. Protoss is very powerful when your opponent sucks at micro. Terran and especially Zerg are hard for noobs to handle.
Are you afraid of SC2 being all about skill so you cant play with the big guys? Too bad looks like you will actually have to train to do your shit.
Starcraft at the low skill levels is absolutely balanced, because even simple things make extreme differences. Every race is powerfull when your opponent sucks at micro, or sucks at anything at all. If you considering maps like Fastest/BGH, then yes, they benefit Protoss the most, but this has nothing to do with player skill.
And to think: all this started, when a little boy in South Korea set out to discover a new and flashy way to send SCVs mining, so he could impress a girl from class.
On August 16 2007 01:39 Senix wrote: You cannot balance a game for all skill levels. Even Starcraft isnt balanced for noobs. Protoss is very powerful when your opponent sucks at micro. Terran and especially Zerg are hard for noobs to handle.
Are you afraid of SC2 being all about skill so you cant play with the big guys? Too bad looks like you will actually have to train to do your shit.
Starcraft at the low skill levels is absolutely balanced, because even simple things make extreme differences. Every race is powerfull when your opponent sucks at micro, or sucks at anything at all. If you considering maps like Fastest/BGH, then yes, they benefit Protoss the most, but this has nothing to do with player skill.
Protoss is incredibly imbalanced for players who have only about 6 monthes of experience. On Blizz maps or blood bath, I have yet to see a new Terran stop some kind of 2 gate or 2 gate w/ forge cannon zeal rush. You would have to have very good scv and marine micro. Most new players don't even know they have to use their scvs, and simply buy a bunker and get owned a few minutes later by cannons or goons. And don't even get me started on the newb's outlook on 5 pool.
So basically, you're saying the game should be designed for progamers. Nice.
EXACTLY! Thats the point of COMPETITIVE games. Blizzard is balancing the game for the pros. Casual dudes get the flashy graphics to drool about. Nobody will give a rats ass about a game that every noob can play good. Just look at C&C3.
I think you should spent some time actually PLAYING Starcraft to get a grasp why this game is so awesome: 5 minutes to learn and a lifetime to master.
Sorry to bust everyone's bubble, and I do enjoy competitive games (its why I'm here on this board), but he reality is that most of the money Blizzard makes is from casual gamers. They just make their games so that everyone can enjoy something from it, newbs and pros alike. Don't forget, Starcraft is also well known for its awesome UMS map making tools (best around at the time).. thats not pro gamer orientated. Starcraft also has a lot of personality behind the units with the sounds and animations.. not pro gamer orientated.. starcraft also has a very immersive and awesome story/single-player campaign.. again not pro game orientated. There are much more even. Most of Starcraft was not intented to be a pro gamer esport.. they just wanted to make a kickass RTS game that was fun, and esports was a branch of their success with it.
Don't want to give you the wrong idea, I love watching pro gamers and I love playing competitively.. but just don't forget the reality of things here.....
So basically, you're saying the game should be designed for progamers. Nice.
EXACTLY! Thats the point of COMPETITIVE games. Blizzard is balancing the game for the pros. Casual dudes get the flashy graphics to drool about. Nobody will give a rats ass about a game that every noob can play good. Just look at C&C3.
I think you should spent some time actually PLAYING Starcraft to get a grasp why this game is so awesome: 5 minutes to learn and a lifetime to master.
Sorry to bust everyone's bubble, and I do enjoy competitive games (its why I'm here on this board), but he reality is that most of the money Blizzard makes is from casual gamers. They just make their games so that everyone can enjoy something from it, newbs and pros alike. Don't forget, Starcraft is also well known for its awesome UMS map making tools (best around at the time).. thats not pro gamer orientated. Starcraft also has a lot of personality behind the units with the sounds and animations.. not pro gamer orientated.. starcraft also has a very immersive and awesome story/single-player campaign.. again not pro game orientated. There are much more even. Most of Starcraft was not intented to be a pro gamer esport.. they just wanted to make a kickass RTS game that was fun, and esports was a branch of their success with it.
Don't want to give you the wrong idea, I love watching pro gamers and I love playing competitively.. but just don't forget the reality of things here.....
The reality of things is that the proscene didn't even exist when Blizz made Starcraft. The reality also is that Chris Sigaty said in a video interview (I think it's with 1up or IGN, not sure) that they're developing SC2 with hardcore players in mind first and foremost, and they'd add stuff around it so it became playable for newbies as well.
Don't you think it would be stupid for Blizz not to develop SC2 with hardcore gamers in mind? I mean they're what kept Starcraft alive for 9 years, not John the Hydrarancher.
On August 16 2007 19:08 Stegosaur wrote: they're developing SC2 with hardcore players in mind first and foremost, and they'd add stuff around it so it became playable for newbies as well.
And thus the new UI were born that made it possible for new players to enjoy the content!
But anyway, balance should always go for the highest levels first, but that doesnt mean that you can totally forget about the lower levels, and it gets easier to get a good low level balance if a low level game play with about the same rules as a high level game, just that they play it a lot worse.
So basically, you're saying the game should be designed for progamers. Nice.
EXACTLY! Thats the point of COMPETITIVE games. Blizzard is balancing the game for the pros. Casual dudes get the flashy graphics to drool about. Nobody will give a rats ass about a game that every noob can play good. Just look at C&C3.
I think you should spent some time actually PLAYING Starcraft to get a grasp why this game is so awesome: 5 minutes to learn and a lifetime to master.
Sorry to bust everyone's bubble, and I do enjoy competitive games (its why I'm here on this board), but he reality is that most of the money Blizzard makes is from casual gamers. They just make their games so that everyone can enjoy something from it, newbs and pros alike. Don't forget, Starcraft is also well known for its awesome UMS map making tools (best around at the time).. thats not pro gamer orientated. Starcraft also has a lot of personality behind the units with the sounds and animations.. not pro gamer orientated.. starcraft also has a very immersive and awesome story/single-player campaign.. again not pro game orientated. There are much more even. Most of Starcraft was not intented to be a pro gamer esport.. they just wanted to make a kickass RTS game that was fun, and esports was a branch of their success with it.
Don't want to give you the wrong idea, I love watching pro gamers and I love playing competitively.. but just don't forget the reality of things here.....
The reality of things is that the proscene didn't even exist when Blizz made Starcraft. The reality also is that Chris Sigaty said in a video interview (I think it's with 1up or IGN, not sure) that they're developing SC2 with hardcore players in mind first and foremost, and they'd add stuff around it so it became playable for newbies as well.
Don't you think it would be stupid for Blizz not to develop SC2 with hardcore gamers in mind? I mean they're what kept Starcraft alive for 9 years, not John the Hydrarancher.
The point is Starcraft kicked ass and we all loved it even though it wasn't even made to be an esport in the beginning. The Koreans turned it into an esport, which is a great thing of course.
But what kept Starcraft alive for so long is not John the Hydrarancher, or Jin The Gosu.. its a combination of all those elements and more. Believe it or not, Starcraft is more than just an awesome competitive sports that Koreans play to make money off of. It was the awesome story behind the game, it was the awesome campaign editor, it was the awesome and balanced gameplay, it was the awesome battle.net service, and it was the awesomely comical and serious personality of the game overall.
Its good that SC2 is being made with hardcore gamers in mind, in fact I want it to be. But the game has to be well rounded to become a successful Blizzard game. If you look at all of Blizzard's games they are very well rounded games that cater to everyone and give a lot to everyone. Its what makes Blizzard's games the best. Its not that they're games are the best games for casual players or the best games for hardcore competitive players. Its that their games are the BEST GAMES PERIOD. Just look at ALL of Blizzard's games.. Diablo, Warcraft, and Starcraft. They ALL have a very strong and huge community thats lasted since the beginning of their release. This is not th lower the importance of competitive play for the game, because its a major factor for its success.. but just don't forget the rest of the picture
With that said, may SC2 be a huge success and continue the Starcraft Legacy that we all love.
I don't know where this became: Blizzard must have everyone in mind = therefore smart casting is good.
There will inevitably be changes and additions to the old interface, but there are many ways to go about it. Just because smart casting is the genetic choice that has been done over and over again by every RTS that comes out it doesn't mean that it's the best choice for SCII. Honestly, I personally expect more from the sequel to the greatest RTS ever made.
I don't mind if worker transfer don't need to clone, but hope you can't easy clone scourges.
That would make them too powerful. It is a similar reason to why ghost lost their lockdown for SC2 since it was too easy and powerful with easy clone.
When I watch the IEF 2007 ZvZ matches, the skill difference in micro was astounding. The defining skill was mutalisk and scourge micro. As the army got slightly larger, the micro difficulty increased when you have zerglings, mutalisk, scourges all over place.
Hopefully scourges aren't removed since they are pefect the way they are.
lol look at all the WC3 gamers wanting the interface nubbified so they can play like pro lol GTFO ^^
Having a computer autocast ur irridates, mind controls and auto rally ure little probes to ure minerals FOR you = not SC
Time management (knowing what to do with ureself), tatics, and hardcore micro that impresses the ladies is SC =D <-- thats what makes the game impressive and exciting to watch not to mention hard to master, challenging and unpredictable.
ppl who want the game nubbified just go play another game plz
EPT
