|
You know if we are going to use sport analogy I got one of my own. You guys say we have artificial limitation in sports to increase skill gaps and such and you are right. Such as dribbling in basketball. But with the old SC UI it'll be like playing basketball with a weight vest, ankle and wrist bracelet. This will make it difficult to jump, run and handle the ball. You'll still have the core rules such as dribbling and not fouling but we'll constrain the players a bit to make the game even more competitive! It'll reward players with better strength and conditioning even more.
With a new UI the core of the game will still be the same. We'll still have our opening bo, unit counters, macro micro wars, we'll still have to do recon, flank and all that good stuff. On the macro side there's even less room for errors, cause you can't use the interface as an excuse anymore. You need perfect timing, perfect unit distribution, proper building placement, constant worker production etc. Even the best player get some surplus money and build extra gateways and expansion etc. Now there will be no surplus your mineral count should be below 400 majority of the time. And now you have the ability to do all of this cause you are not constrait to a arbitrary limitation like starcraft. There'll still be a huge skill gap between players and a more skill player will have much more efficient macro than a weaker player.
Now personally MBS/Auto mining don't matter to me a bit. I would be satisfy either way it being put in or taken out. But I see all the benefits of new modern UI changes and I think we should get a few more play test in before acting like zealots and calling the game off right? If after beta testing it does hamper gameplay then maybe we can utter cries of doom.
|
On September 06 2007 17:03 Plexa wrote:
Make AMM + MBS possible in the UMS editor - so if people want they can create maps with these things in them
however
i think you'll find nobody does
1) The real competitors will come from SC anyway (and it seems like most of the true SC players are against it)
2) I'm sure most of the "noob" crowd will disappear away to the next 'title' game released after SC2
3) I really wonder how many of the lobbyists for AMM/MBS will end up playing a majority of UMS games anyway?
x2
That's the solution ; i think some people will do though, and that's great for them, but it'll stay marginal, as it should.
However, as FA already stated, a multi selection to set the rally point would not change the balance micro/macro and avoid some annoyance  This can be considered as an UI 'improvment' in my mind (since you like this term), once again cause it doesnt meddle with the very basis of the game.
I'm still against a 'peon idle button' though, a cautious and ordered style of play should be rewarded somehow.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On September 06 2007 17:44 YinYang69 wrote:
You know if we are going to use sport analogy I got one of my own. You guys say we have artificial limitation in sports to increase skill gaps and such and you are right. Such as dribbling in basketball. But with the old SC UI it'll be like playing basketball with a weight vest, ankle and wrist bracelet. This will make it difficult to jump, run and handle the ball. You'll still have the core rules such as dribbling and not fouling but we'll constrain the players a bit to make the game even more competitive! It'll reward players with better strength and conditioning even more.
With a new UI the core of the game will still be the same. We'll still have our opening bo, unit counters, macro micro wars, we'll still have to do recon, flank and all that good stuff. On the macro side there's even less room for errors, cause you can't use the interface as an excuse anymore. You need perfect timing, perfect unit distribution, proper building placement, constant worker production etc. Even the best player get some surplus money and build extra gateways and expansion etc. Now there will be no surplus your mineral count should be below 400 majority of the time. And now you have the ability to do all of this cause you are not constrait to a arbitrary limitation like starcraft. There'll still be a huge skill gap between players and a more skill player will have much more efficient macro than a weaker player.
Now personally MBS/Auto mining don't matter to me a bit. I would be satisfy either way it being put in or taken out. But I see all the benefits of new modern UI changes and I think we should get a few more play test in before acting like zealots and calling the game off right? If after beta testing it does hamper gameplay then maybe we can utter cries of doom.
First off your going to piss off all the people who played Basketball when you come out with "Basket Ball 2" and show in on TV everywhere around the world. You didn't just make basket ball more competitive, you turned it into warcraft 3. I don't want to watch a bunch of beefy basket ball players move around like they're underwater. Why don't you give all the players plastic wiffel baseball bats, that way we can just auto cast their basketballs into the hoops because they'll be too busy hitting each other playing basket ball 2 while brining a disgrace to the original name: basket ball.
Actually your sport COULD be interesting, i just don't want to see it called Basket ball 2 since it's just basketball with a bunch of handicaps. For a competitive player Starcrafts interface is ideal, sure we can improve on it, but making it slower isn't improvement, blizzard should be organizing the hotkeys to make more interesting finger combinations and making each races hotkey setup intentionally unique. This is an embarrassing solution to competitive play. But as a non competitive feature, it's fine.
|
On September 06 2007 16:59 Hokay wrote:Show nested quote +
3) lets try something new
its not new. people have tried SC2 already and given feedback. I have tried wc3 and it sucks.
.
and yet the game is not even alpha or in beta with blizzards promise of "other ways to occupy a players skill".
seeing as how the guy doing the demo keeps on droning "this is how very skilled players can micro..." i seriously hope that they come up with something that will -really- be requiring skill
but still. macro is a very very central part of sc. i spend a lot of time training my macro and whenever i try to teach someone to play sc they -always- lagg behind on macro so so so much and are always like "wtf how did you get so many units so fast"?
its what seperates the good players from the great, so dont kill it.
|
everything should be on MANUAL MODE in SC2 . WHY? because its just like formula 1 racing..all formula one racing cars are manual transmission..u need to train to become a good driver..shifting gears smoothly..and using what gears etc,, not some easy shit AUTO transmission..know what i mean? its more competitive that way.its all about driving skillszz
and sc is all about macro, micro skills .dont take any of it away.
sc broodwar = manual gear
sc2= auto gear (automining , MBS etc etc)
pls make sc2 = manual gear
|
While I understand your point lingwu, the analogy youve used is wrong. F1 racers have manual mode because they need the level of control over their gears not becuase its just harder.
Yes the lack of MBS does not give any extra control that players need, what it does is takes out a part of the game that should have to be mastered and not simplified. If you were using the F1 analogy, maybe you could say that the car would control the speed while all the player does is steer. Yes those who are better at steering would still have an advantage, but it would make the whole sport a hell of a lot more stupider.
Mastering many aspects of the game is very important, the game shouldnt be just about whos the best microer, it should be who is overall the best at macro, micro, and strategical decisions. Someone that lacks in one department should be able to make up for it to an extent by being better in another department. Currently in starcraft you have your macro gods and your micro gods, both of which have pretty much perfect strategy. If you remove the difficulty of macro, your left with just micro gods. BORING
|
i didnt say F1 racers have manual gears because its hard. i said..with manual, theyneed to know how to shift gears smoothly and know what gears to use . and driving skills
same with scbw,, we need to know how to macro and micro
sc2,, easy mode auto gear.
|
ok, You convinced me, MBS should NOT be used in PRO matches and ladder matches!
|
I disagree with the idea that automine or MBS destroy the "macro", "one side of the game".
I think it's a lack of confidence and respect on the developers and the players.
What is macro in SC? If it's the ability to click on ten buildings in a second, or to send mining your peons while microing somewhere else, macro in SC is just a boring but speedy harassment which forbid you to do more interesting things, just as achieving some brilliant micro moves, or thinking an additional second to the strategic issue of the game.
But macro in SC is a lot more than that, even if it's not the richest part of the gameplay: deciding when you have to expand, to mass units, on the ground of your strategic feeling of the match.
On the other hand, it's obvious that when the number of controls, and expands, increases during the game the average quality of micro "per control" decreases at the same time, even in pro-games.
So it's likely to think that the simplification of the most repetitive part of the macro in SC2 will lead to an improvement of the game. Perhaps the mid-game will reach this kind of pure beauty of the early game in pro-match, with individualized micro for units, and build-order's or expansion's decisions taken with a perfect timing and anticipation.
It's true that such a shift in the equilibrium of the gameplay requires a finer (if possible!) balance and a bigger (idem) variety of micro and macro issues of units, maps and build orders to preserve the intensity of the game. But if we are confident in developpers and players, we could hope that this progress will be made, and that the general interest of the game will so be improved.
I just want to add a comment on the "learning curve" of SC and SC2. Perhaps (but I'm not sure) will automine ant MBS reduce the difference of level between a bad and an average player. But I think they will widen the gap between this two kind of players and the very good or pro gamers. To click five times in a second on gateways is not an easy thing to deal with, and it takes months or even years to be able to do it without to focus on that part of the gameplay. But it's an easier challenge that micro your 100 controls in order to attack, and defend, and scout all the map, and climb the tech tree, and prepare the coming of the 100 further controls... A pro produces his units and manages his peons a lot better and faster than me. But it's probably the part of the gameplay where the difference is the smallest.
|
i like to see the first person VOD of the progamer where he switches his screen quickly to his base and click each of his building and build unitvery fast...rather than see his FPVOD press "1 T",,,, all done.
|
On September 06 2007 22:32 lingwu wrote:
i like to see the first person VOD of the progamer where he switches his screen quickly to his base and click each of his building and build unitvery fast...rather than see his FPVOD press "1 T",,,, all done.
I'd rather see them play the game in FPVODs instead of watching them doing macro / going through hotkeys (with lightning speed of course, but still...) 80% of all the time.
|
Ah yes watching someone press F2 to go to their factories and click and press T T T T T T is so exciting. They still need to properly balance their units they can't just build pure tanks. So now we can drag 4 facts press V and 2 and press T. There is still manual exertion for that part just far less tedious. Add to that since that part is made relatively easier we'll have more time to deal with proper building placement, money surpluses, constant worker production, etc. so the macro itself is not long gone.
What blizzard should do is add more macro oriented stuff into the game not keep the SC1 interface. I doubt they can bill the old interface as a selling point on the back of the box. I know some hated the Warcraft analogy but it can be apply here. If we are going to artificially hamper our self why stop at twelve unit selection, why not make it six or even one? Carriers shouldn't be able to queue interceptors, we should have to manually build them one by one every time they're done. No shift queing either when that peon is finish building that depot you have to manually tell him to go back to a mineral patch. And heal shouldn't be auto cast god damn it micro those medics so they heal the marines just like the paladins had to do in Warcraft 2! Why are we allow to select multiple siege tanks and tell them all to siege at once? It should be done on a per unit basis. Why does my unit automatically attack a hostile enemy when standing idle? We should have to manually order it to attack other units etc etc.
|
F1 uses Paddle Shifters now -_-;;
|
On September 06 2007 22:52 YinYang69 wrote:
Ah yes watching someone press F2 to go to their factories and click and press T T T T T T is so exciting. They still need to properly balance their units they can't just build pure tanks. So now we can drag 4 facts press V and 2 and press T. There is still manual exertion for that part just far less tedious. Add to that since that part is made relatively easier we'll have more time to deal with proper building placement, money surpluses, constant worker production, etc. so the macro itself is not long gone.
What blizzard should do is add more macro oriented stuff into the game not keep the SC1 interface. I doubt they can bill the old interface as a selling point on the back of the box. I know some hated the Warcraft analogy but it can be apply here. If we are going to artificially hamper our self why stop at twelve unit selection, why not make it six or even one? Carriers shouldn't be able to queue interceptors, we should have to manually build them one by one every time they're done. No shift queing either when that peon is finish building that depot you have to manually tell him to go back to a mineral patch. And heal shouldn't be auto cast god damn it micro those medics so they heal the marines just like the paladins had to do in Warcraft 2! Why are we allow to select multiple siege tanks and tell them all to siege at once? It should be done on a per unit basis. Why does my unit automatically attack a hostile enemy when standing idle? We should have to manually order it to attack other units etc etc.
i totally agree...and also rally,,should not be just right click..the new right click rallying is for teh newbie user friendly. press R and click is the way to go.
|
some people are not competitive enough to press all those shit.. why not just play hello kitty and friends?
|
On September 06 2007 22:52 YinYang69 wrote:
Ah yes watching someone press F2 to go to their factories and click and press T T T T T T is so exciting. They still need to properly balance their units they can't just build pure tanks. So now we can drag 4 facts press V and 2 and press T. There is still manual exertion for that part just far less tedious. Add to that since that part is made relatively easier we'll have more time to deal with proper building placement, money surpluses, constant worker production, etc. so the macro itself is not long gone.
What blizzard should do is add more macro oriented stuff into the game not keep the SC1 interface. I doubt they can bill the old interface as a selling point on the back of the box. I know some hated the Warcraft analogy but it can be apply here. If we are going to artificially hamper our self why stop at twelve unit selection, why not make it six or even one? Carriers shouldn't be able to queue interceptors, we should have to manually build them one by one every time they're done. No shift queing either when that peon is finish building that depot you have to manually tell him to go back to a mineral patch. And heal shouldn't be auto cast god damn it micro those medics so they heal the marines just like the paladins had to do in Warcraft 2! Why are we allow to select multiple siege tanks and tell them all to siege at once? It should be done on a per unit basis. Why does my unit automatically attack a hostile enemy when standing idle? We should have to manually order it to attack other units etc etc.
WHy is it that peolpe who want to argue for newbifying macroing want to use the most retarded analogies to back their views?
|
What I like in FPVODs is JulyZerg muta harassing and just flashes of larva showing in the "current selection window".
|
On September 06 2007 22:52 YinYang69 wrote:
I doubt they can bill the old interface as a selling point on the back of the box. I know some hated the Warcraft analogy but it can be apply here. If we are going to artificially hamper our self why stop at twelve unit selection, why not make it six or even one? Carriers shouldn't be able to queue interceptors, we should have to manually build them one by one every time they're done. No shift queing either when that peon is finish building that depot you have to manually tell him to go back to a mineral patch. And heal shouldn't be auto cast god damn it micro those medics so they heal the marines just like the paladins had to do in Warcraft 2! Why are we allow to select multiple siege tanks and tell them all to siege at once? It should be done on a per unit basis. Why does my unit automatically attack a hostile enemy when standing idle? We should have to manually order it to attack other units etc etc.
Sigh, I hope you know that anolgies such as this do no support your argument, all they do is show that you are crap at arguing.
I could say "Why dont you all go play a game that does everything for you, why dont we let the game mange your economy for you and you select a build order at the start of the game...etc". Is it a fair assumption that this is the game you want to play? No. Does it support my argument in any way? No. Does it make me look smart? Absolutly not. So if your going to post, dont post crap. I feel sorry for the blizzard guy whos going through threads and seeing that bloody analogy over and over.
Btw if there is a blizzard employee reading this, make sure you try the finger trick. Itll blow your mind 
|
How is it retarded? The old warcraft games require more manual exertion and less automation. Isn't that what we want? At least write a well written reply back instead of a two sentence bash.
|
On September 06 2007 23:37 Hawk wrote:
WHy is it that peolpe who want to argue for newbifying macroing want to use the most retarded analogies to back their views?
Maybe cause those who against UI improvements are saying even more retarted: "with mbs and auto-mining macro, competition and all great things that made starcraft popular will die"? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
