|
Well written posts FreeSoul, I agree absolutely.
Also, one should keep in mind that SC2 is being developed and balanced with this simpler UI in mind from the beginning on. And from what I've seen so far, they are definately doing it right by adding new units with interesting new abilities that allow for a little bit more strategical and tactical depth.
If we really get a deeper game when it's released, then there should be nothing to complain about - all players will use the time (or APM) they gain from the simplified macro for better executed attacks, or one more attack at a given time, or a drop in parallel to the main attack, or simply for microing your units better. I think that's more interesting than clicking through factories. Especially for progamers who are playing to entertain the spectators basically, because the spectators want to see the action, and not how well their favorite player clicks through his factories. 
Boxer/Yell0w style micro wizardry could become viable again! And stay viable.
|
Excellent post by FreeSoul. This has been my opinion for quite some time now. I absolutely do not understand all the conservatism with regards to those tasks in sc:bw that have, by now, only become tedious.
They do not prove skill or anything, they are just tedious. Of course sc2 has to be made smarter and thereby possibly "easier" since it is a modern game. However, this only means that the most skilled persons will have time over to excell in other areas of the game. There will still be a skill difference between players - just that it won't be about who can spot the idle probes fast enough.
|
Excellent post FreeSoul. I feel the same.
|
All these big posts feel to me like an attempt to get away from the fact that every person who has played SC2 has said that macro isn't challenging enough. As the game gets further along in development maybe enough additional features will be added to the game to make sure that physical abilities will continue to be relevant in judging player skill, I can't help but doubt it though.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be interface changes. Rallying production facilities in StarCraft is needlessly hard. An idle worker button makes sure that workers aren't getting lost. But being able to build 10-20 units at a time just doesn't work in the game's current incarnation, and I can't imagine what would make it work.
|
On August 09 2007 21:35 DTDominion wrote:
But being able to build 10-20 units at a time just doesn't work in the game's current incarnation, and I can't imagine what would make it work.
Balance?
So that building 20 of any unit at once is a bad move since your opponent can just build the hard counters?
|
Also, in BW, if there is no fighting at some point in the game (and no intention to attack yet) you're pretty much free to use all of your APM for macro, and then building 20 units at once by clicking through the factories is no problem too (and quickly done). It only becomes a problem when you are fighting at the same time because macro distracts so much. SC2 will help there.
And humans are creatures of habit, so I think it's normal that some people who have played SC2 feel that this is bad because it's different from the known game, but this attitude might change when they play it more often.
|
Before I say anything else, I'd like to say this post is about generalizations and doesn't really necessarily cover the absolute very best players out there. But it definitely covers some of the pro players that are considered very good and would be on anybody's top 30 list.
One thing that might be getting glossed over is the fact that too much macro emphasis (or more precisely, the part of macro that is production and worker attention... not the decisions on when to expand, when to make more barracks, how to organize large forces, etc.) has a way of encouraging turtling, stale, or predictable play. As in, you'd rather get your production going perfectly and avoid any battles that you don't plan to win. Once you get a high unit limit or are forced to fight, you go with it, but you avoid all situations that would prevent you from keeping production going strong. This seems overly limiting in a game where near constant fighting is a viable tactic.
Some of that play is fine, and it's smart to gear a match toward your strengths... but sometimes it goes overboard or is boring. Some of the best macro players go out of their way to either not harass (they just wait till they are close to 200/200) or to only harass/attack when it's convenient for them. Convenient as in
a. they just finished queuing units, building more production buildings, and moving workers, so they have a moment to attack.
b. they are zerg, and have easy access to attack (air unit muta harass) and production (larva build up) which doesn't care about queue time. Notice that the offensive oriented players go really crazy with Muta harass... as in an all-in type attack. The conservative players just want to pester, but not kill with mutas, generally.
c. As zerg, wait to have the "correct number" of drones before making fighting units while still getting income so that they'll have minerals to expand soon. Part of this can be art, but part of this is also basically turtling and making drones as long as you can.
And some are encouraged to defend because their stationary units can operate well if attacked.
a. they have units that do really well when unattended for the first moments. MnM vs zerg ground until defiler/ultra. Or TvP, Siegetanks in siegemode with spidermines already set up in good positions, vultures/turrets in position, etc.
b. PvZ - fast expand, wall + cannons... or tons of cannons + reavers early mid-game
c. TvT in many situations.
And some (again, not necessarily the very best players) macro oriented players go out of their way to avoid a fight b/c they know their late game macro will beat what the other guy is capable of late game. While this is smart strategically, it can cause the first 5 minutes of the game to play out slower if the other guy responds by keeping up with expansions... which coincidentally seems to be the easier, safer, and preferred method in many cases. And there are definite times in many pro matches where they could be attacking to gain a tiny advantage, but instead just wait and macro more b/c it'd be too much trouble to attack with little benefit.
Looking at all these things, I think it's something Blizzard is trying to avoid reproducing in SC2 by giving more attack options (obvious with Terran) and by making macro more convenient even when you are attacking.
|
good point blacklizard.
I rather think it will be very good if the easy and tedious tasks are done away with. I really do feel that someone who is an excellent strategist but haven't played SC that much should be able to dig into SC2 and be able to play well after some practice.
I know this is probably a minority opinion but sometimes I think that the advantage of fast hands is used the wrong way in SC. If you are very fast, this will be an advantage even if the tedious tasks are done away with. You will simply use your speed for other things (maybe controlling two attacks at the same time etc.) which will only make the game more fun.
The current interface in BW is obsolete.
|
Great posts Blacklizard and FreeSoul.
Also, in order for SC2 to be a better game than SC:BW, it HAS to be different.
If it's just SC:BW with some subtle differences, why bother switching from BW to SC2 at all? Why would pros learn all the new unit types and available strats just for some minor improvements and a graphical update(which many consider to be a bad thing)?
It just has to bring new things, that make a significant difference, like a new UI, for example 
|
United States4471 Posts
Some posts regarding the "simplification" of SC2 that I think are relevant to this discussion. Thought it'd be good to put it all in one place.
From "[Blizzcon] Impressions of StarCraft II and Protoss" Thread:
On August 10 2007 05:18 XaI)CyRiC wrote:
I personally don't think the macro issues are as serious as they seem. The real reasons why the macro seemed too easy was because of imbalance in the skill level of the players and the units.
If both players are able to "easily" macro and produce huge armies to the same extent, then it becomes a wash and the only problem is the possibility of armies getting too big. So long as the skill level of the players are comparable, the ease in producing units will be available to both sides and the game's balance is maintained.
The other problem was the fact that massing one or two types of units was too effective at this point in the game. Once the game becomes more refined, it makes sense that the particular makeup of armies will become very important. Being able to produce 10 Phoenixes with one click won't be as useful when games are closer since having the right unit mix and resource management will become more important as the disparity in skill narrows. Ideally, the game will require players to selectively use their gateways in order to maximize their effectiveness. Let's not forget that macro isn't just being able to produce the greatest number of units in the shortest amount of time, it's the management of resources in order to best execute your strategy. Once the game is more refined and balanced, this will involve more than producing 10 units of a given type at a time.
Something that could be considered to counter the ease of producing large numbers of units from multiple production buildings could be to increase the build time for units. This would make players have to think more about what unit to produce at a given time since time would become a larger issue. Another counter would be to emphasize the importance or enhance the effectiveness in having a diverse army. If the game rewarded appropriate unit mixes more, players would be less inclined to individually select what unit to produce from gateways to make sure they have the best mix at all times.
The problem with making workers too easily is a different issue as there's obviously not much thought that needs to go into that particular process. The only problem I see here is that it's too easy to build up a strong economy quickly. However, the less time spent selecting individual buildings to build workers could be countered by just slowing the economy of the game down by making units gather slower, get fewer resources each time, have fewer amounts of mineral patches per base, or by making everything just cost more. Further, the same issues above about having to be more selective with producing workers will become more important as the disparity in skill between opponents narrows.
From "Is there easy cloning mode now?" Thread:
On August 10 2007 04:49 XaI)CyRiC wrote:
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.
|
What does "build up a strong economy quickly" really mean?
If it's easy to build a strong economy, then it won't be enough and you'll need an even BETTER economy to win, resulting in more bases and larger armies and more requirements for skills like multitasking/micro/macro, which ain't a bad thing, IMO SC2 should emphasise on faster and "bigger" gameplay - increased game speed from BW, multiple battle fronts, constant harassment, e.t.c.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
