Nony+Testie's post suffices to cover almost all of the points I can think of. IMO that covers pretty much all of the points there are...
I wish Pillars read that post - amazing post by Nony.
---
Re:Skill difference
Blizzard tried to make skill difference show in micro with warcraft3 - they noobfieid the macro/base management process. Result? Well...I believe that we have a general concensus of how the war3 gameplay feels like, and I would say that many of the people reading this forum do not like it.
In sc, since it takes a considerable amount of time to make units/manage base, each player will face a decision to choose between spending time microing on the battlefield or macroing back at home. The skill difference is easily shown between a good player and a pro in this case - since now it requires both hand dexterity and cognitive awareness of the game flow. In warcraft3, such difference is not clearly visible, and may even be overcame by luck factor.
I have no doubt that [with some tweaks] sc2 will be a wonderful spectator game. That is, a game that is interesting to watch and follow. However, in order for sc2 to stay alive for an extented period of time, the skill difference between class A player and class S player has to be significant.
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.
[/b]
You are extremely exaggerating there. A simpler UI doesn't make you win the game automatically, and a simpler macro doesn't make a newb win the game as well because the more important skills are strategy, tactics, micro, scouting, and things like that. Memorizing build orders, yes, but that also doesn't make you win the game (same in BW). Build orders remain anyway, and it will take a while before the best build orders for each situation have been found out.
The key is simply that you have to spend too much time on macro in BW, which leads to situations like "oh I'll just let these units die, I can produce new ones in the meantime" or "oh shit I couldn't watch for 2 seconds because I had to macro, I just lost all drones at that expansion". The fact that macro takes so much time in BW automatically leads to more careless unit control, even for progamers. And the UI can in some situations become your enemy too because it distracts you, although that's the job of your opponent to do (e.g. by attacking at two places or faking an attack).
And while it is true that it does take more skill with an unfriendly UI, it's a very "boring" or "dumb" skill. Macroing is really the most basic thing to do in a RTS and I don't see why it would be better to be forced to hit 10 keys plus mouse movement plus mouse clicking for producing 10 zealots out of 10 gates instead of just 2 keys (select all gates + select Zealot). It just slows you down, even progamers. Even for progamers, the game is so "hard" that they can't control 2 or 3 attacks properly because of all the shit you have to do in the meantime. Even progamers lose many units stupidly due to micro mistakes because they had to macro at that time. Does that look cool when you watch it? No... for spectators micro is much "cooler".
And guess why queens, ghosts, dark archons and so on are used so rarely? Because they're a bitch to control well with all the macroing you have to do all the time. That's why people prefer not to use them and instead use only "standard" units. This applies to both newbies and progamers.
If we make the macro less important and the micro more important, all battles will be more intense (that's what all spectators want), we will see more units and abilities being used for more variety, and we will see more interesting tactics and strategical maneuvers.
Yes, it's impressive when a Korean pro can click 10 times faster than you and do something awesome that you couldn't do in the same situation. But, is that what the game is about? Difficulty to play? With AI for certain things, I'm sure there will be new things that they can come up with to stay better than the rest of us. These kinds of technical skills are developed by the people, not designed by the game.
On August 08 2007 11:20 KH1031 wrote: Nony+Testie's post suffices to cover almost all of the points I can think of. IMO that covers pretty much all of the points there are...
I wish Pillars read that post - amazing post by Nony.
---
Re:Skill difference
Blizzard tried to make skill difference show in micro with warcraft3 - they noobfieid the macro/base management process. Result? Well...I believe that we have a general concensus of how the war3 gameplay feels like, and I would say that many of the people reading this forum do not like it.
Warcraft 3 is easy and boring to watch due to low unit count and low lethality. When it takes 30 hits to kill a unit and theres no significant aoe the game just get less exciting compared to a game were an army of 25 units can be lost in 5 seconds.
Other flaws that make warcraft 3 less exciting is the unit upkeep, free base defenses, free starting hero, get out of jail cards, (town portal) non hero casters not having signifivant spells like sc or wc2 casters, main resource is extremely limited and secondanrey resource is unlimited making people ignore wood cost when considering units while gas cost is a serious thing in sc etc.
The UI changes hardly does anything to wc3, if wc3 had sc UI it would basically play the same with a few changes in strategy but overall the game would sitll be boring to watch and lack exciting moments.
On August 07 2007 20:40 5HITCOMBO wrote: You have made 13 posts. 5 of them were in this thread, and every one of those posts was insulting, stupid, and riddled with bad spelling.
That's over one third of your posts.
I don't know anything about how you acted for your other eight, but if I was a moderator, I would have banned you on principle. Anyone who only makes 2/3 of their posts worth reading (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you probably can spell decently and make intelligent, flame-free posts, against all evidence) isn't worth having here at TL.net.
We're a better community than this. Leave if you can't clean your act up.
Meat beat me to it. How ironic, meat beat me.
oh snap, how am I not getting banned then? like only 2 of my 1k+ posts are worth reading.
On August 08 2007 11:20 KH1031 wrote: Blizzard tried to make skill difference show in micro with warcraft3 - they noobfieid the macro/base management process. Result? Well...I believe that we have a general concensus of how the war3 gameplay feels like, and I would say that many of the people reading this forum do not like it.
That was said thousand times. Gameplay of wc3 has nothing to do with it's UI. Believe it or not, with sc:bw interface wc3 will be even more slow paced and spectacular, than it's now.
If you wanna good example when noobish interface makes game harder, look at DDR. J/k. Have you played supreme commander?
- Unlimited unit selection cap. Main suggestion from veteran players here same as in SC - hotkey small groups of units, than it will be easer to flank and attack at multiple fronts. - Unlimited building selection. - Unlimited building and construction queue and you don't spend resources when adding to queue. - No need for supply (food) when building units. - If you send Engineers (workers) patrol, they will automatically gather energy/mass from wrecks or will assist buildings or other engineers
Macro in this game is just on another level and developers would never achieve such heights without improvements of interface
I agree with Klockan3, Brutalisk, and InRaged (and probably others, i didnt catch the whole thread yet) on many points. The main point being that the UI in War3 wasn't the real problem.
"Warcraft 3 is easy and boring to watch due to low unit count and low lethality. When it takes 30 hits to kill a unit and theres no significant aoe the game just get less exciting compared to a game were an army of 25 units can be lost in 5 seconds."
"Even for progamers, the game is so "hard" that they can't control 2 or 3 attacks properly because of all the shit you have to do in the meantime. Even progamers lose many units stupidly due to micro mistakes because they had to macro at that time. Does that look cool when you watch it? No... for spectators micro is much "cooler"."
Yeah, it makes me really angry when I see the pros lose their own men (observers, goons, you name it) to their Own psi storms or stand marines stupidly inside of dark swarm next to lurkers, when I know if they just had 1 more moment on the battle they could have saved them. Regarding MBS, I seriously doubt it'll ever come to the point where making the same unit out of all your gateways is going to be effective. No way. You'll still need to subdivide them... you're still going to be pressing: 4z, 5s, 6i, 7whatever, 8(check forge/twi council), etc.
BTW, I don't mean to talk down on War3. I'm sure it needs a lot of talent to play... but my god it's just not as immediately satisfying as BW is during the battles. And I certinaly don't mean to say BW has so much macro it's no good, it's just that more micro would be even better. I think this is the direction SC2 is trying to go to. We'll see.
I fail to see how the "showcaseability" of a game has to do anything with the noobfriendliness of the game. Neither Starcraft nor WC3 are more "noobfriendly" than the other. WC3's optimised UI is part of what allows amazing micro like Staffing away units at 1 HP or TPing your hero away just as it's about to die, or transfering items between heroes when they really need it is required. Without, say, the ability to right-click your item, click on the other hero's portrait, and then use the item, micro like this would be impossible to do.
The more and more I read the less I feel that sc2 is not going to be a big success. Why dont the developers understand that one of the reasons BW was a great game because macro was such a important issue.. I mean if they want to make macro so easy why dont they just turn SC2 melee games into Micro Wars where you just get units ( I know thats extreme but you get my point). Here is a simple logical expression for Dustin.
Macro < W3 > Micro Micro < BW > Macro BW > W3 Yes I understand that SC != (not equal) SC2 but W3 != W2
So why are they making Macro easier in SC2?
Even if micro is going to become harder in SC2, by making the macro just as hard as BW you will have to acheive even a higher level of skill to master SC2 rather then BW.
I think they are scared that W3 players and other RTS gamers will be scared to convert to SC2. Making the macro easier will solve this problem, but solving that problem another will arise. Hardcore BW players will end up back to playing BW.
The best solution would be to find a equilibrium and right now from what I have seen they weighing way to much on the ease of macroing. I really don't think they should have multiple building selections and most importantly you shouldn't be able to have one scv queue 20 supply depots. Keep the auto mine on and scv auto repair on. Smartcasting i really couldn't give a opinion on until I played the game.
I would like to have faith in blizzard, but after my let down from W3 and all the SC2 preveiws I have seen I'm a little bit scared.
On August 08 2007 15:53 houseurmusic wrote: The more and more I read the less I feel that sc2 is not going to be a big success. Why dont the developers understand that one of the reasons BW was a great game because macro was such a important issue.. I mean if they want to make macro so easy why dont they just turn SC2 melee games into Micro Wars where you just get units ( I know thats extreme but you get my point). Here is a simple logical expression for Dustin.
Macro < W3 > Micro Micro < BW > Macro BW > W3 Yes I understand that SC != (not equal) SC2 but W3 != W2
So why are they making Macro easier in SC2?
Even if micro is going to become harder in SC2, by making the macro just as hard as BW you will have to acheive even a higher level of skill to master SC2 rather then BW.
I think they are scared that W3 players and other RTS gamers will be scared to convert to SC2. Making the macro easier will solve this problem, but solving that problem another will arise. Hardcore BW players will end up back to playing BW.
The best solution would be to find a equilibrium and right now from what I have seen they weighing way to much on the ease of macroing. I really don't think they should have multiple building selections and most importantly you shouldn't be able to have one scv queue 20 supply depots. Keep the auto mine on and scv auto repair on. Smartcasting i really couldn't give a opinion on until I played the game.
I would like to have faith in blizzard, but after my let down from W3 and all the SC2 preveiws I have seen I'm a little bit scared.
This post is total rubbish.
Yes sc macro clicks needed>wc3 macro clicks needed, But lack of macro clicks doesnt make a damn difference since the important aspect is really: Sc strategical depth>Wc3 strategical depth. Sc combat speed>Wc3 combat speed. Sc unit count> Wc3 unit count Sc importance of micro<Wc3 importance of micro.
The strategical depth is probably the most important, in warcraft 3 its impossible to eout eco people since expansions dont make a big difference since they take popcap wich lowers your income and even if you outeco your opponent by a ton you cant relax since if he gets more exp than you and gets to level 6 first its over, terrain isnt important and ambushes just gives you a hit or 2 wich doesnt do any real difference, having a larger army can be bad in some circumstances since it costs you money and on top of that rushing is worthless in 1v1 games since starting base defenses of all races is well enough to counter any rush.
Just face it, the need to have a lot macro apm doesnt help starcraft at all, if starcraft were more streamlined and were balanced for less macro apm more player would like/play it and the pros would still pwn since they would just use more apm towards microing rather than clicking out units.
On August 08 2007 15:53 houseurmusic wrote: The more and more I read the less I feel that sc2 is not going to be a big success. Why dont the developers understand that one of the reasons BW was a great game because macro was such a important issue.. I mean if they want to make macro so easy why dont they just turn SC2 melee games into Micro Wars where you just get units ( I know thats extreme but you get my point). Here is a simple logical expression for Dustin.
Macro < W3 > Micro Micro < BW > Macro BW > W3 Yes I understand that SC != (not equal) SC2 but W3 != W2
So why are they making Macro easier in SC2?
Even if micro is going to become harder in SC2, by making the macro just as hard as BW you will have to acheive even a higher level of skill to master SC2 rather then BW.
I think they are scared that W3 players and other RTS gamers will be scared to convert to SC2. Making the macro easier will solve this problem, but solving that problem another will arise. Hardcore BW players will end up back to playing BW.
The best solution would be to find a equilibrium and right now from what I have seen they weighing way to much on the ease of macroing. I really don't think they should have multiple building selections and most importantly you shouldn't be able to have one scv queue 20 supply depots. Keep the auto mine on and scv auto repair on. Smartcasting i really couldn't give a opinion on until I played the game.
I would like to have faith in blizzard, but after my let down from W3 and all the SC2 preveiws I have seen I'm a little bit scared.
This post is total rubbish.
Yes sc macro clicks needed>wc3 macro clicks needed, But lack of macro clicks doesnt make a damn difference since the important aspect is really: Sc strategical depth>Wc3 strategical depth. Sc combat speed>Wc3 combat speed. Sc unit count> Wc3 unit count Sc importance of micro<Wc3 importance of micro.
The strategical depth is probably the most important, in warcraft 3 its impossible to eout eco people since expansions dont make a big difference since they take popcap wich lowers your income and even if you outeco your opponent by a ton you cant relax since if he gets more exp than you and gets to level 6 first its over, terrain isnt important and ambushes just gives you a hit or 2 wich doesnt do any real difference, having a larger army can be bad in some circumstances since it costs you money and on top of that rushing is worthless in 1v1 games since starting base defenses of all races is well enough to counter any rush.
Just face it, the need to have a lot macro apm doesnt help starcraft at all, if starcraft were more streamlined and were balanced for less macro apm more player would like/play it and the pros would still pwn since they would just use more apm towards microing rather than clicking out units.
.... I could write a 30 page essay on all the differences between the 2 games. This was one example. Big part of the strategy in BW is how to balance out your macro and micro. Whether to micro this battle or not, wheter to attack or build, etc... Also it goes to the APM of the player. BW was popular because of the speed of the game.
You are correct about all the strategical depths of the game, but for a high level player these depths that you speak of are easily attainable while macroing your base. By taking away the macro you are closing the gap between the descent and good players.
in warcraft 3 its impossible to eout eco people since expansions dont make a big difference since they take popcap wich lowers your income and even if you outeco your opponent by a ton you cant relax since if he gets more exp than you and gets to level 6 first its over
This statement is contradictory, you are agreeing with me here...
That was said thousand times. Gameplay of wc3 has nothing to do with it's UI. Believe it or not, with sc:bw interface wc3 will be even more slow paced and spectacular, than it's now.
If you wanna good example when noobish interface makes game harder, look at DDR. J/k. Have you played supreme commander?
- Unlimited unit selection cap. Main suggestion from veteran players here same as in SC - hotkey small groups of units, than it will be easer to flank and attack at multiple fronts. - Unlimited building selection. - Unlimited building and construction queue and you don't spend resources when adding to queue. - No need for supply (food) when building units. - If you send Engineers (workers) patrol, they will automatically gather energy/mass from wrecks or will assist buildings or other engineers
Macro in this game is just on another level and developers would never achieve such heights without improvements of interface
QFT.
Those people arguing how UI improvements will kill macro and elevate noobs to iloveoov level, should go play Total Annihilation (download Spring, it's free), or SupCom...maybe get outmacroed to hell and back a few times and then realize how much more macro this game requires, despite its UI being more advanced than War3's. And to think, this game was released a little earlier than SC.
1v1 in TA is like a TvT in bw, only with constant teching and macroing completely beyond bw's level.
In the bottom line, yes, with good UI noobs will be able to macro better...initially. If anything goes wrong, or more complicated than usual, they'll start watching units too much (it's inevitable)...and consequently rebuild/expand territory several times slower than a good player. I always thought what separated pros the most was the ability to keep sharp focus on all fronts almost regardless of what happens in the game. At least when I'm thinking about TvT's anyway.
I think TA has some right ideas with front line warfare with dragon tooth (perimeter defense that blocks movement and direct shots, no bw equivalent) , turrets, radars, jammers, and artillery units, plus concentrated force attacks with advanced air fighters (like muta) or mass bombers (no bw equivalent) or nuke. Though the ability to drop stuff in general isn't nearly as strong as in bw, and furthermore there are pretty strong defenses that get relatively cheap in lategame, encouraging attrition warfare and massing. There's also a sore lack in effective anti-unit AoE, which is as Blacklizard pointed out, a major disadvantage. You could argue this game leans TOO MUCH to the macro side of things. Which goes to discredit the claim UI improvements inherently noobify macro.
in warcraft 3 its impossible to eout eco people since expansions dont make a big difference since they take popcap wich lowers your income and even if you outeco your opponent by a ton you cant relax since if he gets more exp than you and gets to level 6 first its over
This statement is contradictory, you are agreeing with me here...
No, the reason you cant out eco people in war 3 has to do with supply caps not the UI, you talk as if the UI limits the skill in wc3 wich it doesnt. Anyone can macro perfectly in wc3 even if the UI was at starcraft levels, simply beacuse you hardly ever produce from more than 2 raxes at once, you need max 5 workers per mine(Usually 10 since normally you use 2 mines) and 7 workers on lumber and you just dont lose/replace that many units. In starcraft you produce as many units per minute as during a whole typical wc3 game.
Also i doubt that pros outeco people in sc by just pressing the build icons faster, they need to somewere do something that not everyone can do, for example fast multiple expand while at the same time surviving with less forces, to later get an unstoppab le swarm due to eco advantage. Macro isnt hard at all since its repetetive, you set the rules of macro yourself, while micro is always a fast battle vs your opponents moves.
Edit: About TA, it probably have the most craving macro of any rts created, it was simply to hard to play and to much happened at once for most people wich is why it never got big. Supreme commander today is almost a TA clone but with an heavily updated UI to make the macro easier and its still hard to do everything at once in that game.
On August 08 2007 14:39 rS]taCat wrote: I fail to see how the "showcaseability" of a game has to do anything with the noobfriendliness of the game. Neither Starcraft nor WC3 are more "noobfriendly" than the other. WC3's optimised UI is part of what allows amazing micro like Staffing away units at 1 HP or TPing your hero away just as it's about to die, or transfering items between heroes when they really need it is required. Without, say, the ability to right-click your item, click on the other hero's portrait, and then use the item, micro like this would be impossible to do.
for once someone whos actually watched/played wc3 comments
seriously most of you guys that bitch about sc2 being to easy are ignorant fucktards
EPT
