EPTmy idea is that if blizzard put in a difficulty option into the game, in the multiplayer section. so when set on pro mode, or the most difficult mode it's all like bw and you still have to shift select ghosts, clone workers etc. and if set on low level mode it's much easier to do all those thinks that pros do. so the person hosting the game hosts the game on high level then the people only play on that mode. how is this idea?
An idea on noob friendlyness of SC2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
[Red]Spartan
Mongolia15 Posts
my idea is that if blizzard put in a difficulty option into the game, in the multiplayer section. so when set on pro mode, or the most difficult mode it's all like bw and you still have to shift select ghosts, clone workers etc. and if set on low level mode it's much easier to do all those thinks that pros do. so the person hosting the game hosts the game on high level then the people only play on that mode. how is this idea? | ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
| ||
|
azndsh
United States4447 Posts
no production queue no shift-click no attack-move heck, no selecting more than one unit at once but in all seriousness, that seems kind of pointless. who in their right mind would choose to play with a limited interface? | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
| ||
|
[Red]Spartan
Mongolia15 Posts
| ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
On August 07 2007 20:21 [Red]Spartan wrote: no idiot, when the difficulty is set on high then the easy clone mode is off, and the difficulty OPTION is on low then the easy clone mode is on, don't have to make 2 differen games just make an option to set those easy modes on and off dumbass You've got a lot of balls and stupidity to come in here with a horrible idea then start calling us idiots. | ||
|
SiZ.FaNtAsY
Korea (South)1497 Posts
On August 07 2007 20:22 5HITCOMBO wrote: You've got a lot of balls and stupidity to come in here with a horrible idea then start calling us idiots. QFT | ||
|
[Red]Spartan
Mongolia15 Posts
| ||
|
DamageControL
United States4222 Posts
| ||
|
[Red]Spartan
Mongolia15 Posts
On August 07 2007 20:22 5HITCOMBO wrote: You've got a lot of balls and stupidity to come in here with a horrible idea then start calling us idiots. i think you're the one who's got balls and stupidity. i appriciate that you read the topic but i don't think you understood it very well. dumb ass. Edit: oh yeah and i only called YOU idiot. IDIOT | ||
|
DamageControL
United States4222 Posts
On August 07 2007 20:30 [Red]Spartan wrote: just cuz they didnt like it doesnt mean they didnt understand.i think you're the one who's got balls and stupidity. i appriciate that you read the topic but i don't think you understood it very well. dumb ass. | ||
|
[Red]Spartan
Mongolia15 Posts
On August 07 2007 20:31 DamageControL wrote: just cuz they didnt like it doesnt mean they didnt understand. yeah i guess i overreacted but at least could've just wrote their oppinion, but fireing on it just sucks. | ||
|
Yogurt
United States4258 Posts
On August 07 2007 20:30 [Red]Spartan wrote: i think you're the one who's got balls and stupidity. i appriciate that you read the topic but i don't think you understood it very well. dumb ass. Edit: oh yeah and i only called YOU idiot. IDIOT wow lol i give em 2 more posts | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
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. | ||
|
[Red]Spartan
Mongolia15 Posts
On August 07 2007 20:35 fusionsdf wrote: 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. My exact point | ||
|
Meat
Netherlands3751 Posts
| ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
On August 07 2007 20:30 [Red]Spartan wrote: i think you're the one who's got balls and stupidity. i appriciate that you read the topic but i don't think you understood it very well. dumb ass. Edit: oh yeah and i only called YOU idiot. IDIOT 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. | ||
|
Brutalisk
794 Posts
| ||
|
houseurmusic
United States544 Posts
So mb blizzard wont have a amatuer and pro mode of the game, but if you are able to adjust the speed of the play, then that would be equivelent to your post. | ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
Otherwise we'll just make the mods and admins do more work. | ||
|
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
2013 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
8748 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. | ||
|
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
Australia6103 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
| ||
|
KH1031
United States862 Posts
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. | ||
|
Brutalisk
794 Posts
On August 08 2007 08:48 AcrossFiveJulys wrote: [/b]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. 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. | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
On August 08 2007 11:11 uvaer wrote: Starcraft 2 = CounterStrike:Source Starcraft 2 = Wing Commander (at least this makes sense) | ||
|
oshibori_probe
United States2933 Posts
Ai can be a gift or a curse | ||
|
I_are_n00b
196 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
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. | ||
|
XCetron
5226 Posts
On August 07 2007 20:40 5HITCOMBO wrote: 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. | ||
|
InRaged
1047 Posts
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 | ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
"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. | ||
|
Sudyn
United States744 Posts
| ||
|
Wizard
Poland5055 Posts
| ||
|
houseurmusic
United States544 Posts
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. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
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. | ||
|
houseurmusic
United States544 Posts
On August 08 2007 16:21 Klockan3 wrote: 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. This is a good post about the success of BW. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=57636 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... | ||
|
EmS.Radagast
Israel280 Posts
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. | ||
|
houseurmusic
United States544 Posts
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. Just because it leans to much to the macro side doesn't mean that the macro is hard. | ||
|
EmS.Radagast
Israel280 Posts
Just because it leans to much to the macro side doesn't mean that the macro is hard. Are you suggesting that TA is an easy RTS to play? lawl. Have you ever played the game against a decent 1v1 player? | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On August 08 2007 16:48 houseurmusic wrote: 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. | ||
|
oshibori_probe
United States2933 Posts
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 | ||
|
oshibori_probe
United States2933 Posts
Starcraft should not be this hard. | ||
|
Equinox_kr
United States7395 Posts
| ||
|
MindpLay-
40 Posts
I played both sc and wc3 and imo easy interface would be bad for the sc feel of gameplay. Ofc it can be improved some, it already is with groupings adding and removing units more easily for more interesting defensive micro ( like in wc3). But removing the fast pro moves like good psy storms, irridiates and stuff would totally change the idea, and in that fashion making it more like wc3. This is something that we'd all agree with we dont want? If u haven't played both games u can rationalize it all you want, but u just CANT know Also i read a lot of bs, like, why tennis with a 200kg racket? Nobody would ofc. What u fail to see is that mousespeed and micromanagement is like a good forehand serve with tennis. Btw is tennis a rts game... since there's only a limited amount of strat u can't really compare them | ||
|
oshibori_probe
United States2933 Posts
| ||
|
Apoptosis
United States78 Posts
If you happen to be massing hydralisks, it may be quite easy to have all your production buildings queue'd to 5, and then its a matter of a single hotkey. However chances are, assuming the game is properly balanced, if all you're doing is simply massing hydras at a point in the game where that one keystroke summons up a large number of buildings, chances are you're probably going to get screwed over by that decision as find yourself facing a varied selection of well microed units; as you're engaged by marauding Colossi, High Templar casting storm, mass stasis via forcefields, etc etc, you may find that you were better off being a bit more involved with your macro. Mass production with a single thought, with the right timing, rather than a torrent of keyclicks isn't necessarily a bad thing. With that thought-to-action gap in playability shrinking, and certain aspects of controlling the game become that much more streamlined, the stars of the game will really get a chance to shine. The games become less mechanical and more strategic, allowing gamers, average and professional to concentrate less on clicking factories and gateways, more on choosing appropriate timing, raiding and creating expansions, stashing that ace up their sleeves, fighting intense battles on multiple fronts, dropping, attacking, defending, expanding, and making those bold moves that bring home the game. A great general is distinguished by ability of his mind to cope with a variety of dangers on multiple fronts, developing the perfect strategies, knowing and anticipating the moves of his enemy, and taking the right risks in the right situations; not by his elite phone skills, being able to call up every factory, barn, and workshop in his national area to make sure things are a'crackin. This is gonna be a game to enjoy. | ||
|
aW]Nevermind
Venezuela73 Posts
On August 08 2007 18:11 FreeSoul wrote: As interface improves, gamers across the board are given more fluid control of their forces in SC2. The correspondence between player thought and in-game action improves, giving players more efficient control of their units and more exacting options for production and general gameplay. If you happen to be massing hydralisks, it may be quite easy to have all your production buildings queue'd to 5, and then its a matter of a skill hotkey. However chances are, assuming the game is properly balanced, if all you're doing is simply massing hydras at a point in the game where that one keystroke summons up a large number of buildings, chances are you're probably going to get screwed over by that decision as find yourself facing a varied selection of well microed units; as you're engaged by marauding Colossi, High Templar casting storm, mass stasis via forcefields, etc etc, you may find that you were better off being a bit more involved with your macro. Mass production with a single thought, with the right timing, rather than a torrent of keyclicks isn't necessarily a bad thing. With that thought-to-action gap in playability shrinking, and certain aspects of controlling the game become that much more streamlined, the stars of the game will really get a chance to shine. The games become less mechanical and more strategic, allowing gamers, average and professional to concentrate less on clicking factories and gateways, more on choosing appropriate timing, raiding and creating expansions, stashing that ace up their sleeves, fighting intense battles on multiple fronts, dropping, attacking, defending, expanding, and making those bold moves that bring home the game. A great general is distinguished by ability of his mind to cope with a variety of dangers on multiple fronts, developing the perfect strategies, knowing and anticipating the moves of his enemy, and taking the right risks in the right situations; not by his elite phone skills, being able to call up every factory, barn, and workshop in his national area to make sure things are a'crackin. This is gonna be a game to enjoy. This guy couldn't say it better. | ||
|
Markus
Canada11 Posts
On August 08 2007 11:26 Brutalisk wrote: 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". Amen. I can't believe all the SC fanboys who think difficulty of UI = real skill. I have played many many RTS's, and the ones that require the least amount of skill are the ones that early units are slow and/or do no significant damage. CnC3, AoE3, WC3 come to mind. The game that required the most skill of all the games I've played (including SC) was a clone of Age of Kings called SWGB. This is because all units were quick and brutal, and something that countered something else was extremely brutal to it. You would have battles over 4-6 different areas all at once, because a small group of anything could do serious damage to your econ. Like Brutalisk said even pros of SC can't control more than 2-3 attacks and that is because of the gimped UI of SC. Having a good UI doesn't mean a game will be noob friendly. Having a game where you send your army into a fight, can go get a pop, and nothing has died yet, makes a game noob friendly. | ||
|
NonY
8748 Posts
On August 08 2007 18:11 FreeSoul wrote: ...A great general is distinguished by ability of his mind to cope with a variety of dangers on multiple fronts, developing the perfect strategies, knowing and anticipating the moves of his enemy, and taking the right risks in the right situations... Macromanagement is one of the fronts on which a player is challenged. Taking it out of the game makes for one less arena with which a player can distinguish himself. There was professional BW for years and iloveoov was still able to unlock the secrets of macro that had been hiding from players for so long and amaze crowds with his ability to produce numbers of units previously thought impossible. These secrets include keeping all production facilities in constant use without ever queuing up extra units as well as regularly telling newly-built peons to gather minerals. Nowadays, such concepts and all that go into making them practical are widely known and yet players still cannot have perfect macro in games. Macro remains an area in which a player can choose to risk his time in order to get results. Anticipating whether you'll need to micro your units can determine whether you have the time to invest in making your macro better. Planning out your strategy is essential -- if your opponent constantly attacks you, it is more difficult to reap the full benefit of mass expansion and mass production facility since you cannot give it the attention it requires. Even if SC2 stays true to BW and lets macro remain as much of a challenge and skill as it ought to be, that does not mean that every game of SC2 will be heavily macro-based. Maps can solve balance and trends in style of play. Maps can be designed so that expansion is difficult and minerals are limited and so macro remains relatively simple and other skills are required to win the game. But if you edit the game of SC2 itself so that macro is not an issue on any map, then you take away one of the most sublime, omnipresent, and strategically deep aspects of BW from SC2 for good. | ||
|
Sudyn
United States744 Posts
| ||
|
NonY
8748 Posts
However, this thread isn't about just macro, but rather about an overall "newbifying" of the challenge of BW. My main point about ensuring that a certain number of player mistakes remains in the game still stands. The pressure of proper execution in BW is so strong that knowing a strategy and being able to execute it are two very different things. SC2 players should not be able to execute their strategies any easier than BW players are able to. I don't know what the developers of SC2 want their players to be focusing on most of the time, so I can't say for sure that making macro easier or micro easier are actually bad things. It could be that they will greatly reward battles on multiple fronts or that they expect micro moves to be much more complex than in BW, or anything else. But the same challenge must exist. We've only been given news about SC2 that indicate difficult BW things becoming easy SC2 things and we have heard nothing about what great challenges lie ahead in SC2. As long as the strategically-best moves are also impossible to master, even with 10 years time of playing the game 40 hours per week, then SC2 will be fine. | ||
|
TheOvermind77
United States923 Posts
| ||
|
Apoptosis
United States78 Posts
On August 08 2007 18:32 NonY[rC] wrote: Macromanagement is one of the fronts on which a player is challenged. Taking it out of the game makes for one less arena with which a player can distinguish himself. There was professional BW for years and iloveoov was still able to unlock the secrets of macro that had been hiding from players for so long and amaze crowds with his ability to produce numbers of units previously thought impossible. These secrets include keeping all production facilities in constant use without ever queuing up extra units as well as regularly telling newly-built peons to gather minerals. Nowadays, such concepts and all that go into making them practical are widely known and yet players still cannot have perfect macro in games. Macro remains an area in which a player can choose to risk his time in order to get results. Anticipating whether you'll need to micro your units can determine whether you have the time to invest in making your macro better. Planning out your strategy is essential -- if your opponent constantly attacks you, it is more difficult to reap the full benefit of mass expansion and mass production facility since you cannot give it the attention it requires. Even if SC2 stays true to BW and lets macro remain as much of a challenge and skill as it ought to be, that does not mean that every game of SC2 will be heavily macro-based. Maps can solve balance and trends in style of play. Maps can be designed so that expansion is difficult and minerals are limited and so macro remains relatively simple and other skills are required to win the game. But if you edit the game of SC2 itself so that macro is not an issue on any map, then you take away one of the most sublime, omnipresent, and strategically deep aspects of BW from SC2 for good. I certainly agree with your thoughts on macromanagement, it is certainly one of the fronts that present great opportunity to keen players. That said, I do not believe SC2 cuts low on macromanagement to any substantial degree. What it cuts down on are interface-based roadblocks, superflous problems that arise not necessarily from strategic consideration, but rather from what is, despite our great love and affection for it, is an outdated system of interface. While one can certainly make an arguement that doing certain things that we had to in Brood War to keep the game flowing, such as assigning new probes to minerals or having to race through your production buildings, executing click after click, keystroke after keytroke requires presence of mind on top of mechanical ability in order to execute well, which is a part of great RTS gameplay, periodically checking your Nexi or Command Centers to move those idle probes, or individually clicking building by building are, by modern standards of RTS gameplay, more akin to banal tasks such as taking out the trash, washing the dishes, or doing laundry than they are what makes Brood War such a high-flying excursion into mind games and strategy. They are more about mechanics than actual thoughtful and skillful manipulation of units, analytical gameplay, daring, and strategy. That said, I don't think Brood War would be Brood War without those things. They are an integral part of SC1 gameplay and in the theater of Brood War, are part of what distinguishes the pros from the lightweights. However, I welcome such interface streamlining for StarCraft 2, considering the game is being designed with these things already in mind. And it is being done for a reason, that being that removing the "busywork" as it would be considered in a 2007 game, or indeed, knowing Blizzard, '08, '09, will indeed impact gameplay. Since the game is being designed with this in mind, players will find that they will have to push the envelope even further if they want to be successful in their games; Unique strategies, psychological gameplay, amazing feats of army control and in-battle micromanagement. Blizzard isn't removing Macro, it's removing the busywork involved with an older interface, albeit one we have come to accept for what it is and appreciate greatly. If anything, it can be said that Macro will be pushed into even higher gear, there's no excuse now for not having your production in tip-top shape and absolute maximum capacity every moment for a high level player now. When it comes down to the ropes, this is a new game and the StarCraft series is venturing into new territory. Simplicity is best when it comes to interface, let's make up for the ease of use of the interface by the complexity of the game itself. You won't find yourself want of things to do in this game, without a doubt. | ||
|
KH1031
United States862 Posts
On August 08 2007 18:54 NonY[rC] wrote: I don't know what the developers of SC2 want their players to be focusing on most of the time, so I can't say for sure that making macro easier or micro easier are actually bad things. It could be that they will greatly reward battles on multiple fronts or that they expect micro moves to be much more complex than in BW, or anything else. But the same challenge must exist. We've only been given news about SC2 that indicate difficult BW things becoming easy SC2 things and we have heard nothing about what great challenges lie ahead in SC2. As long as the strategically-best moves are also impossible to master, even with 10 years time of playing the game 40 hours per week, then SC2 will be fine... that's what i have in my mind as well - Amen to that On August 08 2007 12:01 InRaged wrote: 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. I think the point here is if you have warcraft3 interface implemented in sc, not the other way around. I also intented to stay on topic and argued how noob friendly interface in sc2 will not help contrast skill level, especially when it is a high level competition. - I believe you may have misunderstood my post or have taken it out of context. In my humble opinion, the level of macro/micro in sc right now is what contrasts the difference between a good player and a great player (along with game sense and timing, of course), and that is essential. And if sc2 is going to implement some sort of EZ macro/micro interface - whether it be unlimited unit/building selection, autocast/single cast when all casters are selected, etc - they ought to work on some other area where the skill level can easily be contrasted. At the moment, I could not think of anything else that would serve such purpose. I believe that blizzard will not only make sc2 a great game to play, but it will also be a long lasting spectator game. | ||
|
oshibori_probe
United States2933 Posts
What does blizzard have to gain from making an old fashioned game? | ||
|
InRaged
1047 Posts
On August 08 2007 19:01 KH1031 wrote: I think the point here is if you have warcraft3 interface implemented in sc, not the other way around. The point is no matter which interface you implement how spectacular/competitive will game be depends on many factors but interface | ||
|
KH1031
United States862 Posts
On August 08 2007 19:25 InRaged wrote: The point is no matter which interface you implement how spectacular/competitive will game be depends on many factors but interface While I certainly respect your position and appreciate your prompt response, I find it hard to agree that the interface is not a factor of how (as quoted from you) spectacular/competitive a game would be. I'd ask for you to perhaps elaborate a bit on your viewpoint, otherwise this is becoming a moot discussion. | ||
|
houseurmusic
United States544 Posts
| ||
|
SirKibbleX
United States479 Posts
In most scenarios in Brood War, a given unit is, at all times, about a second away from death. When a marine takes 2 shots from a vulture or 8 shots from a pair of rapidly-attacking zerglings to kill it, players have little time to react. Micromanagement goes from being an option to a necessity when units are as fragile as they are in Starcraft. The predictability of attacks (not a damage range, but a precise, knowable value) also leads to some strategic decision-making. Upgrades (don\'t forget armor!) are an extremely significant part of the game. Perhaps these are some reasons why pros find Warcraft 3 lacking? Think about it: in Warcraft 3, the average units have several hundred HP, and yet they typically do less than 30 damage. Usually it takes upwards of 30 hits to kill a unit. This gives players a tremendous amount of time to react, and causes players to give less consideration to their units. Though units in WC3 may be \'more valuable\' as armies are smaller, in Starcraft the low cost but high offensive value of any survivng unit gives their survival a high priority. This leads me to the \'new protoss\' and the \'new terrans.\' Perhaps I\'m not alone in finding the Colossi, Warp Rays, Mothership, and Immortals counter-productive? What\'s terran offense going to consist of if Immortal dominate the battlefield? Perhaps new dynamics may alleviate my concern, but I just don\'t want the high survivability of these units to mean that players will cease making rapid, split-second decisions to save their assets. Terran\'s likewise need to be concerned: the new siege tanks are supposedly tougher, the Thor\'s and Viking\'s appear to be powerful tankers, and Battlecruisers newfound ability to rapidly engage multiple targets simultaneously may prove difficult to balance. In all these things, however, I think giving more power to players to macromanage with ease will be a necessity of building the game\'s fanbase into places outside Korea. Supreme Commander came, for a while to be a popular game in my town amonst many of my friends. \"You wanna play SC tonight?\" got really annoying when I was constantly playing StarCraft, not Supreme Commander, all and watching VODs of Korean superstars. The sell of SupCom? Macromanagement made easy. Though a relatively slow-paced game, SupCom had its rush strategies and its econ boomers and its tech-turtles. One could place an unlimited queue of units on a building, rally units into patrols, rally units into groups of a given size, which would then attack en masse, rally dropship patterns to pick up units fresh from factories and deliver them to the frontline. All while players would be busy searching for a hole in the enemy defenses: a weakness against artillary, a lack of anti-air or anti-cloaking systems, a system of reactors placed close together for increased efficiency, but likely to chain-react and destroy one another... the list goes on. Eventually stalemated games could be broken wide by \'high-tech experimental units\' massive laser-wielding spiders or nuclear-tipped cannons, submarine aircraft carriers, or nuclear missiles. What did I learn from this game? Maybe I should rethink what UI\'s can and can\'t to give players creative freedom. I think one key point is that \"Articles of User-Interfacing\" should only be simplified in aspects that relate to one\'s own play. For example, having auto-mining, rally points, and mass-building selection helps YOU; that to say, it doesn\'t directly hurt your opponent. The line is crossed when automation begins to affect your enemy. Auto-casting irradiate on enemy spellcasters or psionic storms on masses of enemies is patently absurd and would only throw the game into imbalance. If you ask me, however, mass-lockdown on one unit is a crippling newb mistake, and one which would require a bit of compromise and careful thought. I would suggest a system that makes hotkeying the units easier, but not necessarily the act. For example, one could have a hotkey that casts a spell for all selected units, and one that casts the spell for the tabbed unit (a la WC3, although some of you will disagree with my direction already). Imagine, rather than selecting severals ghosts and having to accurately shift-deselect units, hit L, and then accurately click on another unit, rinse repeat, one could simply hit L, click an enemy unit (or Q if you\'d prefer a hotkey single-shot alternative) hit tab, rinse repeat. Slightly simpler, but a 3-imput system has 25% less action required, lowering the hoop through which all players must jump. And what\'s the cost? Pro players will hit 3 hotkeys instead of four. Damn that breaks the game completely. How about a group-composition option? If you have a ghost amongst a group of MnM, could you just hit L with the group selected and still get the Lockdown? I think this would be a fair system. Either way, I\'m convinced after all the phenomenal games they\'ve made, they\'ve learned not to balance the races before they finalize and balance the UI. If they change one, they\'ll be very quick to balance the other, but I know not all of you are concerned with balance, but more wiht the pacing and feel of a multiplayer game as heralded and significant as Starcaft II. Some of us may need to be willing to take sides however. I\'m convinced that Starcraft II\'s UI simplicity may be inversely proportional to the magnitude of difference between beginner and professional players, something which I think is important in the creation of E-Sports, and all of sporting in general. | ||
|
InRaged
1047 Posts
On August 08 2007 19:33 KH1031 wrote: While I certainly respect your position and appreciate your prompt response, I find it hard to agree that the interface is not a factor of how (as quoted from you) spectacular/competitive a game would be. I'd ask for you to perhaps elaborate a bit on your viewpoint, otherwise this is becoming a moot discussion. I elaborated that already in post you cut down for one sentence. And Blacklizard did it fine in his post right after mine. Btw look at the video there http://teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=53339 That's possible because of game mechanics, not interface. Oh, and may be that will give you idea what skilled players will do with their free from fighting with interface time. This stuff much harder, much spectacular than clicking through factories/gateways. But clicking on factories much more important, you know.. | ||
|
Lukeeze[zR]
Switzerland6838 Posts
On August 08 2007 17:28 oshibori_probe wrote: seriously most of you guys that bitch about sc2 being to easy are ignorant fucktards QFT F T | ||
|
sc0rchedst0rm
Ireland176 Posts
Still, this is Starcraft 2 we're talking about here. It all seems a little worrying now when we haven't really had a chance to try it out, but I'm sure it will feel right. I believe! Heh, I can see plenty of reasonable arguments both for and against simplifying the UI and whatever, and my take on it is this. You can simplify the UI as much as you want, because at the end of the day all that automation is going to come back and bite you in the ass. Automining? Sure, it'll mean the end of peons idling from the moment they are made, but don't tell me that it'll be better than doing it yourself. Grouped production buildings? I can see how this will make things a LOT easier in a lot of ways, but having to do it the "old fashioned way" makes you think more about what you're doing, and surely thats the guts of a strategy game; thinking? You've already got it to a certain extent with Zerg being able to mass produce units by selecting all Larvae with control click and making 12 units at once? Is this really any better than the Terran/Protoss methods? I don't think so, anyway. I find when doing things this way with Zerg it's all too easy to build massed unit armies, whereas with Terran or Protoss having to go to each Barracks/Factory/Gateway/whatever, regardless of how quickly I'm doing it, makes me think more about the composition of my army and usually yields better results. I don't know, maybe all these things come down to my newbishness and I'm doing it "wrong" anyway. I welcome all the little UI tweaks and enhancements, but I imagine it'll only make a difference for true n00bs and money mappers for pumping out giant armies with minimal effort. Real gosu players are so quick with their macro anyway, there'll probably be little difference. And, anyway, I find all the hard graft of macroing serves the extra purpose of warming up the fingers in time for those do or die micro moments. So, I my proposal is this: The new UI features and whatever will make macro easier, but not redundant. I imagine that it'll still be done in similar fashion as it is done with BW by a lot of people, if only as a hand excersise. BUT the real strength of the new UI will be that macro will no longer have to be a stumbling block when the time comes for intense micro. So REALLY, just by doing this to macro, Blizzard are improving micro. Macro and Micro will have a better working relationship if you will. You'll macro hard when you can, and micro hard when you have to, without one interfering with the other to the same extent. So I say, keep up the good work Blizzard! - Disclaimer: I am still a newb, and I admit this readily. Therefore, my opinion is possibly based on stuff that is catagorically incorrect, or just plain wrong. After all, it is just my opinion. Please remember this before you flame me. | ||
|
Brutalisk
794 Posts
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. | ||
|
ParasitJonte
Sweden1768 Posts
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. | ||
|
Konni
Germany3044 Posts
| ||
|
DTDominion
United States2148 Posts
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. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
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? | ||
|
Brutalisk
794 Posts
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. | ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
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. | ||
|
ParasitJonte
Sweden1768 Posts
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. | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
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 | ||
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
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. | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
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. | ||
| ||
