EPTI don't think you understood that it really would be inbalanced in one of the modes.....some spells are only balanced because of our limitations....for example, if we could lockdown super fast, the terran would be imbalanced.
An idea on noob friendlyness of SC2 - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
I don't think you understood that it really would be inbalanced in one of the modes.....some spells are only balanced because of our limitations....for example, if we could lockdown super fast, the terran would be imbalanced. | ||
|
Lukeeze[zR]
Switzerland6838 Posts
On August 07 2007 20:41 Brutalisk wrote: How long will it take until people realize that one shouldn't have to master the interface, but the game itself? | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On August 07 2007 20:53 Lukeeze[zR] wrote: Why not have a better UI but add more things in to make the game harder? Nerfing AoE and taking out the reaver is not the way to do this.. | ||
|
Lukeeze[zR]
Switzerland6838 Posts
| ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
| ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
 | ||
|
FlyingHamsta
United States77 Posts
Even StarCraft pro games adhere to similar self-moderated regulations: No pausing allowed, and when have you seen a pro match take place on a money map? So the idea of a "hard mode" is really not so far fetched, not one that I support outright but realistically serious players don't play the same game as "noobs" and "casuals." | ||
|
NoNameLoser
United States1508 Posts
Back on topic, OP got a point, controls in this game are anything but easy to a newcomer - the source of continuity of life-cycle of the game. What they should do is make a training (part of single player) on different controlling techniques (not just the mere basics) such that by the time a newbie finishes the campaign, he/she could start learning the strategic aspect online without being "out controlled". Online play SHOULD have only one option with most freedom/complexity. How much? In pillars I trust. | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
Ahem Suck it up take it like a man to w/e Blizzard makes SC2 into. | ||
|
Bash
Finland1533 Posts
| ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
| ||
|
merz
Sweden2760 Posts
| ||
|
Hokay
United States738 Posts
| ||
|
LastWish
2015 Posts
Dune2(one unit selected, you have to press m before move) -> WarCraft1(4 units to select with ctrl, units move on click) -> WarCraft2(drag range select, 9 unit cap) -> StarCraft(12 unit cap, hotkey evolution) -> WarCraft3(individual casting in group, tab group selecting, mass selecting buildings) -> StarCraft2(unlimited unit selections?...) You get used to it, it is better unless there will be no more challenge in the game. So I think the game could be good if they take more into the mass battles & fighting. Like map with 3 corridors and you fight simultanously in all 3 corridors while trying to set a new expansion and drop enemies main. With a good control it could be fun and lot of apm involved. | ||
|
krikker
Afghanistan21 Posts
BW became number one because of its broad appeal, its replayability and the high skill required to master. None of the above can be left out and as such the BW interface is doomed to extinction since it is completely outdated. The high skill level to master must be implemented elsewhere if a new game hopes to take over the throne. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On August 08 2007 02:37 LastWish wrote: StarCraft(12 unit cap, hotkey evolution) -> You forgot the most noobifying interface tweak of all times that blizzard introduced in starcraft: Attack move. And to anyone saying it was in warcraft 2, it wasnt untill battlenet edition. Id say that attack move is one of the reasons to why starcraft became so large, it made it a lot easier to attack and just play the game in general while in older games just attacking your enemies base was a chore in itself. A better interface is good for the game since it makes it easier to play wich is one of blizzards most important aspects, sure "progamers" wont like it when they hear about it but im sure that after a month or 2 of gaming most of you have converted. Thinking that the depth of starcraft was just due to the bad interface is really ignorant and its a shame that annyone play a game just beacuse of its design flaws. | ||
|
ocoini
648 Posts
On August 08 2007 04:48 Klockan3 wrote: You forgot the most noobifying interface tweak of all times that blizzard introduced in starcraft: Attack move. And to anyone saying it was in warcraft 2, it wasnt untill battlenet edition. Everyone used patrol  | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
RTS means Real-Time-Strategy, you have to make strategic decisions under Time pressure. Imho you should spend your time on decisions and combat, not mudane work. Sending your peons to work is neither a decision and shurely not combat. It is mudane work, wich was fine 10 Years ago, but even then NO report ever marveled on a progamers resource gathering. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
Even the computer! But still you had to babysit your armies in wc2 all the time, and production micro in that game is extreme were you cant que units and you have no rally points, and income is a lot higher than in starcraft. Sarcas on/ Starcraft = noob game, the interface plays for you there. The real pro's play warcraft 2. I mean, just rally to your opponents base and que units = GG in starcraft!!/Sarcrasm off This is a bit extreme but not far off from some people on these boards views on interface tweaks. | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
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. The point is that it does not make sense to believe that making an interface as easy as possible is good or that making an interface as hard as possible is good. Either extreme is ridiculous so there must be some sweet spot of balance. If cloning magic spells has been turned into an easy move when it used to be a difficult move, Blizzard needs to compensate by making a previously easy move into a difficult move. However we haven't heard about any of those -- only about other difficult moves turning into easy ones (namely auto-collection for peons and multiple building selection). 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. Ah and here is Testie posting on the same subject, ending it with the exact same suggestion: + Show Spoiler + With these huge groups in Starcraft 2, micro has been reduced. Multiple building selection is a bad idea. Massive groups of unlimited or even over 20 units is a pretty bad idea. It takes away from a lot of micro aspects. From personal talks with many of the best Warcraft 3 players they complain that many of their players can take a year off, not practice, come back and get 1st or 2nd in a prestigious tournament. (Mostly talking about night-elf players). But they also mentioned the pace of the game since there is less to do in a general sense. They can focus on a battle then build 1 moonwell and 1 unit then get back to the battle rather than focussing on controlling a massive army, splitting it sieging it, building from all raxes, facts, and ports, while sending scv's to minerals, etc. (This isn't slandering war3, I like them both and they're both great games. It's simply an analogy to show that even the top War3 players dislike how less skilled opponents can get top spots). No matter how good a player is, if Savior takes a year off of BW he won't win MSL or OSL without atleast 1 month to 3 months practice (and then continuous practice after that to keep in top shape) of practice. Starcraft 2 is making it easier to decrease skill gaps between players. Which is a bad thing. Because you do not respect the players as much, there is less to do, and the game becomes much less intense, thus less fun. They said they would have a lot more to do in SC2, but from playing it, I don't really feel that's the case. They have some cool ideas that are well implemented and well timed. i.e. reapers nor stalkers are imba. The war3 players think immortals are imba, but they really aren't. They just don't know proper macro yet. All professional gamers I have talked to agree that you shouldn't be able to take months off practice then win a prestigious tournament with all the best players nor place 2nd in it. With the simplifying of SC into SC2, thus far it feels like this is what they are doing. RTS should have a mix of many characteristics. If someone's going to bullshit and say it should be all about strategy, and lower skilled people should be able to keep up and nearly be able to macro like Reach by pressing 4z on 10 gateways... then they might as well make it a turn based game. Games should be difficult and take skill. It should take speed, strategy, timing, economy management, game control, etc... and many other factors that make the game great and intense. SC2 still takes skill, but it's not nearly as difficult or intense as playing SC. Thus, comes off as less fun in general. At the very least, professional leagues should have an option to toggle control groups off, multiple selections off, and perhaps even rallied minerals off. Though some players will complain that they still have to build the probe. But meh, we can give perhaps one concession when reducing the skill requirements. It's kind of like reducing the passing scores for schools. =(. All in all I like the game, and it has some cool ideas. Units like the reapers and stalkers do add some coolness to the game that can increase intensity and the speed at which the pace of the game flows. Nor are they imbalanced. | ||
| ||
