EPTdeja vu Nony
An idea on noob friendlyness of SC2 - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
PePe QuiCoSE
Argentina1204 Posts
deja vu Nony | ||
|
Sudyn
United States744 Posts
I think that speculation as to whether or not this newbie-friendly interface is going to be game-changing is a very edgy topic. Blizzard tells us that there will be many other things to do during the game to keep the skill factor there, but we have no idea as to whether or not those plans will come to fruition. We can't base all of these major decisions on a game that hasn't been thoroughly tested yet, but likewise we can't assume that Blizzard has no idea what they're doing when it comes to the game. | ||
|
Highways
Australia6120 Posts
On August 07 2007 23:25 MYM.Testie wrote: 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. hopefully there will be huge skill level differences b/w pros and good players | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
On August 08 2007 06:32 rS]taCat wrote: Very nice post, NonY. I think that speculation as to whether or not this newbie-friendly interface is going to be game-changing is a very edgy topic. Blizzard tells us that there will be many other things to do during the game to keep the skill factor there, but we have no idea as to whether or not those plans will come to fruition. We can't base all of these major decisions on a game that hasn't been thoroughly tested yet, but likewise we can't assume that Blizzard has no idea what they're doing when it comes to the game. I agree and I think blizzard know what they are doing here. I think its more contructive to try to make the game include those extra micro possibilitys instead of removing the new UI. I wouldnt mind having the same controlls as in BW for SC2 if my only concern was the fun I had while playing. But I want more from SC2 than just what I had in BW. If I didnt then why would I need a sequel at all? I want SC2 to revolutionize international progaming the same way BW did in South Korea. Im afraid that if the UI is too backwards and too hard to get into then none of my friends will play the game. We need a lot of people playing the game if we want a big proscene to emerge. The general public will have to understand the game in order to appreciate it. It is possible to combine both having a big scope between average and pro, having whatever the pros manage to do seem cool and inspiring and at the same time having a game that is easy to get into and enjoyable to play on an average level without 100+ APM. | ||
|
boghat
United States2109 Posts
On August 08 2007 06:49 DrainX wrote: It is possible to combine both having a big scope between average and pro, having whatever the pros manage to do seem cool and inspiring and at the same time having a game that is easy to get into and enjoyable to play on an average level without 100+ APM. Yeah, it's called Brood War. | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
Starcraft being a big hit among casual gamers 9 years ago doesnt mean the same game if released today would do the same. If your opinion is that Broodwar is the perfect game and cant be improved then why do you want SC2 at all? | ||
|
Brutalisk
794 Posts
It's simply wrong. In any kind of sport, you want to have the best "interface" possible so that you are not distracted from the game. In basketball, you have a ball which is light, easy to grab and easy to throw. You don't have a quadratic clump of lead because that would require more skill. In tennis, you have a very light racket. And so on. The point is that you can "forget" about the interface and concentrate on the game. Also, about the speed issue: there are even some newbies who are simply so fast to have 200+ APM easily, just like the pros in Korea, but still they don't even come close to their skill. Because they don't have the micro, strategic understanding and build orders and experience and all that to really be good at the game. And this is what really counts. | ||
|
Phyre
United States1288 Posts
I feel in both these cases these dumbed down versions of the games hurt the overall community. I think it would be best to balance the game for one unified version and get everyone onto that so there is one standard way to play we can all enjoy and compete in at the same time. | ||
|
deverlight
Korea (South)463 Posts
Games like WoW, where the Arenas are considered to be "competitive" enough for league play, don't really cut it for me. While playing WoW I constantly find myself opening my character pane or bags just for the sake of doing something with my hands because I'm just so used to my left hand running all the time in SC. I don't want SC2 to be a game where I have to add extra unnecessary actions just to feel like I'm doing something. Dunno if my point makes any sense, but that's how I feel about htis =) | ||
|
OrderlyChaos
United States1115 Posts
On August 08 2007 06:49 DrainX wrote: I agree and I think blizzard know what they are doing here. I think its more contructive to try to make the game include those extra micro possibilitys instead of removing the new UI. I wouldnt mind having the same controlls as in BW for SC2 if my only concern was the fun I had while playing. But I want more from SC2 than just what I had in BW. If I didnt then why would I need a sequel at all? I want SC2 to revolutionize international progaming the same way BW did in South Korea. Im afraid that if the UI is too backwards and too hard to get into then none of my friends will play the game. We need a lot of people playing the game if we want a big proscene to emerge. The general public will have to understand the game in order to appreciate it. It is possible to combine both having a big scope between average and pro, having whatever the pros manage to do seem cool and inspiring and at the same time having a game that is easy to get into and enjoyable to play on an average level without 100+ APM. I think DrainX has essentially brought up the biggest dilemma for Blizzard. IMO, if they released BW with shinier graphics and bugfixes, a ton of the current players and former players who-liked-it but-left-for-other-games would come back and buy it. But, a new game has to target another crowd, i.e. newcomers to the franchise that might be turned off by the fact that "SC2" doesn't offer anything new. | ||
|
boghat
United States2109 Posts
On August 08 2007 07:16 DrainX wrote: Starcraft being a big hit among casual gamers 9 years ago doesnt mean the same game if released today would do the same. If your opinion is that Broodwar is the perfect game and cant be improved then why do you want SC2 at all? If it had updated graphics, like a 3D engine, it probably would. I have a feeling SCII will not be able to reach the professional fame as Starcraft but that doesn't mean I don't want to try a new game. I'm sure it will be fun. Starcraft's UI really isn't even that bad. I don't think things like unlimited unit selection would even affect the game that much though so I have no problem with it. Smart casting wouldn't affect it that much either except that you can't have spells too powerful like has been mentioned before so maybe smart casting isn't such a great idea. | ||
|
DTDominion
United States2148 Posts
On August 08 2007 07:49 Phyre wrote: Having two different modes of UI seems like a very bad idea. It would cause a split in the community, makes games more difficult to get going, start all manner of debate about which takes more real skill, etc. We've already seen this in many games where there is some kind of mode/map that removes an aspect of the game. For example, Fastest/BGH/Money maps in SC1 or -em (easy mode) in DotA. Both are played far more than the normal modes that those respective games were balanced for and as such results in a splitting of the community between the "pub noobs" and the "elitist pros." For those of us that don't have a clan for DotA, finding a non-em game to play can be a chore and often you end up with -em players coming into a non-em game, getting owned, ruining the game, and then leaving. In SC1 the money maps are so ingrained in the majority of average players that most of them simply forget or don't know how to play without infinite minerals. 9/10 times I've asked to play someone at college they only know how to play on BGH. I feel in both these cases these dumbed down versions of the games hurt the overall community. I think it would be best to balance the game for one unified version and get everyone onto that so there is one standard way to play we can all enjoy and compete in at the same time. Absolutely correct, and better said than what most people could have conjured up. | ||
|
AcrossFiveJulys
United States3612 Posts
On August 08 2007 07:38 Brutalisk wrote: I think that Broodwar, which is the best RTS to date (and this ONLY because of its gameplay and balance, NOT because of its horrible interface) and the fact that WC3 isn't so great but has a simpler interface, confuses many people into believing that there must be a very hard interface in order to have a good game. It's simply wrong. In any kind of sport, you want to have the best "interface" possible so that you are not distracted from the game. In basketball, you have a ball which is light, easy to grab and easy to throw. You don't have a quadratic clump of lead because that would require more skill. In tennis, you have a very light racket. And so on. The point is that you can "forget" about the interface and concentrate on the game. Also, about the speed issue: there are even some newbies who are simply so fast to have 200+ APM easily, just like the pros in Korea, but still they don't even come close to their skill. Because they don't have the micro, strategic understanding and build orders and experience and all that to really be good at the game. And this is what really counts. Your comparison to sports is flawed. The best possible UI in basketball might involve magnets in the ball and hoop so every shot goes in from a certain distance. The best possible UI in tennis might be each playing having some kind of super powerful vaccuum that will always catch the ball at a certain distance and then players could aim it to anywhere on the court they wanted perfectly every time. Would this distract from the game? I think so. Sure, if tennis were this way you would still have to know where to place the ball, and in basketball you would still have to have plays that allow you to get a shot off and great teamwork. But would these sports really be any fun to watch? You could sit and memorize strategies and be nearly on par with pros. That's not good. As has been said by testie and nony, the execution difficulty is vital for the game to be fun to watch and have great potential for skill. Making the UI so forgiving for new players removes this execution difficulty. Imagine if you had the same shooting skill in golf as Tiger Woods, and all you had to do was know what club to select. | ||
|
Malcolm
Spain61 Posts
| ||
|
tochigi
Japan17 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On August 08 2007 08:48 AcrossFiveJulys wrote: Your comparison to sports is flawed. The best possible UI in basketball might involve magnets in the ball and hoop so every shot goes in from a certain distance. The best possible UI in tennis might be each playing having some kind of super powerful vaccuum that will always catch the ball at a certain distance and then players could aim it to anywhere on the court they wanted perfectly every time. Would this distract from the game? I think so. Sure, if tennis were this way you would still have to know where to place the ball, and in basketball you would still have to have plays that allow you to get a shot off and great teamwork. But would these sports really be any fun to watch? You could sit and memorize strategies and be nearly on par with pros. That's not good. As has been said by testie and nony, the execution difficulty is vital for the game to be fun to watch and have great potential for skill. Making the UI so forgiving for new players removes this execution difficulty. Imagine if you had the same shooting skill in golf as Tiger Woods, and all you had to do was know what club to select. Same as how the equipment cant do those things in tennis/golf/basket, there is no UI today that can do everything you wish without input. The execution part will be as hard as before since it will be impossible to get to the limit just as before wich means that its your execution skills against your opponents execution skills. Btw: You could sit and memorize strategies and be nearly on par with pros. lol, this is exactly how it is with the heavy macro, everyone can learn to macro perfectly by reading guides but its impossible for anyone micro perfectly in most rts games, the only reason its hard in sc is beacuse you have to micro at the same time. Removing the macro parts will just widden the gap since noobs cant micro beacuse micro is the hardest aspect to master since it have the most variables. If we would remove all micro from sc all top games would just lead to stalemates since macro got a quite low hardcap in skill, while micro is almost endless, while if we instead removed all macro the endless amounth of micro you can do would still be there. I focus on macro here since the UI improvements to micro are insignificant compared to the macro changes. | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
On August 08 2007 08:48 AcrossFiveJulys wrote: As has been said by testie and nony, the execution difficulty is vital for the game to be fun to watch and have great potential for skill. No one here is disagreeing with that. The interface isnt the entire game. There are lots of other things that can be made hard to master. | ||
|
SuperJongMan
Jamaica11586 Posts
I think a lot of player fear would be alleviated if we knew what was gonna replace Macro in the apm scheme of things...... as wierd and chobo as that sounds... I'd actually like to know what SC2 has to offer to make up for the frantic macro cuz so far I've noticed cobras move and shot and that's about it. | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
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. | ||
|
uvaer
Norway157 Posts
| ||
| ||
