|
Having some experience from Armies of Exigo which used both automining and MBS, I have to agree that introducing these to BW would have drastic effects on how the game is played. In the early game you\'ll be staring at your band of men which you will either have in a defensive position or be moving back and forth to pressure or micro in a battle. Some argue that multifront-micro will help you outwit your opponent by being mechanically faster, but splitting your army early would mostly just cause you to lose map control because his more concentrated army would be able to scare away both parts of your army.
You would mostly win that game by having better timing on your macro (making production buildings at the right times, cutting worker production, expo timing etc), a specifically optimized build order or just plainly using some hidden strat that the opponent would not be able to see in time. Despite having more time to micro, micro became a smaller part of the game, I felt, because the power of micro is strongest when the opponent is not microing well.
Starcraft II will be different from Armies of Exigo, but I fear MBS and automining will have similar effects on it. As a consumer I would want something more than a game that boils down to little more than knowing some build orders. But at the same time I think it's time to leave the realm of repetitive tedious actions. If Blizzard decides to keep MBS and automining, they really need something new to keep you occupied in the early part of the game...
|
On September 04 2007 22:43 sundance wrote:
Agreed with Sadist. Macro is much more about not to forget to build that damn units than some hand speed. If you forget to build units now than you will forget to press 4z too.
But the thing is, if you can hotkey all ur production buildings to just a few hotkeys, you can more easily check on when to build things. Also, you will very rarely have to go back to your base(s) for the purpose of building units since you have enough hotkeys for everything, hence lessening the amount of multitasking required. I dunno if its just me and my slow speed, but sometimes I know the timing of when I need to build the next cycle of units but choose to delay it slightly becuase microing my army at the moment takes precedence. With mbs just one or two press you could get macro out of the way.
So mbs would affect macro a lot simply because you wouldn't need to devote as much attention to your base.
A lot of people have proposed the multiple select but you have to tab... but to be honest tabbing through 10 gates instead of using one 1 would only take at most one second longer anyways. The difference between tabbing through gates with mbs and the current interface in sc1 is that you dont have to press 55 then click z click z click z ect..., which takes away from your attention and time. One reason why speed is so important is because you have to get macro out of the way quickly in order to focus again on your army. If you can essentially focus on your army the whole time, then it doesn't really matter than much how fast you macro because your attention is not diverted nearly as much. The same concept applies with automining... you dont have to go back to your cc or nexus to tell probes to mine.
I mention multitasking speed a lot because for a player like me its no problem playing fast at like 300+ apm when I'm looking on one screen, but when I'm forced to constantly shift between base and my army and other shit my speed drops considerably because my multitasking isn't that fast. Still, i think tabbing would be better than mbs with none at all since at least it would add some need for hand dexterity. But then again, with both mbs and automining, the importance of speed is greatly lessened.
But ya as people have said it doesn't matter if mbs and automining are in teh game as long as there are more macro tasks that require good multitasking.
|
|
|
On September 04 2007 22:29 sundance wrote:+ Show Spoiler +What about make MBS as an upgrade? It would be called something like 'Commanding skill' so it will give you ability to send same command do more then one building. It would be something expensive like shield upgrade in SC1 and it would have three levels. So at level 1 you can select two buildings, level 2 - three and level 3 - four buildings. And also place the upgrade in separate building (expensive) building which will increase the cost of this comfort even more.
So on the high level of the play it would be recognized as waste of money and maybe usable in the late game when you reached the unit cap and have a lot of money. This auto regulation would be imo a lot better and more natural then something artificially forced. So noobs will be upgrading asap so but will die vs timed attack executed by any decent player. And on BGH and FME you can afford anything so noobs will have what they want.
my two euro cents.
EDIT: and unlimited selection could be something like 4th level ultimate upgrade which would costs something like 3000/3000 I really like the general idea.
I'd rather have a button in the UI for that though, "personal upgrades" or something.
Ok, that's not a great name, but it symbolizes the level of personal competence (of the character you represent in the game) when it comes to managing your subordinated.
It would obviously be reset to 0 when a new game starts.
+ Show Spoiler +"So on the high level of the play it would be recognized as waste of money and maybe usable in the late game when you reached the unit cap and have a lot of money."
|
Okay...
So let me get this straight: what makes BW so great is having to play despite having to macro, as opposed to the silly notions of strategic depth and faction balance. Therefore, making macro significantly easier will turn SCII into a boring C&C clone with hordes of units rolling over one another. In the end, BW is basically just another RTS, only you have to do absolutely everything yourself. Cue progaming.
Did I come close to accurately describing the sentiment here?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 05 2007 02:04 Chodorkovskiy wrote:
Okay...
So let me get this straight: what makes BW so great is having to play despite having to macro, as opposed to the silly notions of strategic depth and faction balance. Therefore, making macro significantly easier will turn SCII into a boring C&C clone with hordes of units rolling over one another. In the end, BW is basically just another RTS, only you have to do absolutely everything yourself. Cue progaming.
Did I come close to accurately describing the sentiment here?
Do you try extra hard to miss the point or something?
BW is great because it is is all those things, it has strategic depth, it has great demands for dexterity, it is superbly balanced.
Making macro signficantly easier would not turn it into CnC, it would just make the game less good than SC.
|
On September 05 2007 02:12 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2007 02:04 Chodorkovskiy wrote:
Okay...
So let me get this straight: what makes BW so great is having to play despite having to macro, as opposed to the silly notions of strategic depth and faction balance. Therefore, making macro significantly easier will turn SCII into a boring C&C clone with hordes of units rolling over one another. In the end, BW is basically just another RTS, only you have to do absolutely everything yourself. Cue progaming.
Did I come close to accurately describing the sentiment here? Do you try extra hard to miss the point or something? BW is great because it is is all those things, it has strategic depth, it has great demands for dexterity, it is superbly balanced.
Very well. Will tipping the balance in favor of micro turn it into a C&C clone?
|
On September 04 2007 06:27 MyLostTemple wrote:
Lets say your maxed in a pvz, your done teching, your done upgrading. All that's left is to macro out of your 20 gates and fight over resource locations. Now what if i could just hit 4z and make 20 zealots... macroing like reach. Now what am i supposed to do?... Micro?... But i'm not a war3 player. I don't just want to micro. I love macroing because i'm a true sc player. This wasn't some silly obstacle that had to be overcome with a better interface... it's an awesome feature that made sc so great.
Now lets take that a step further. Lets say z only needs this three unit combination on map A to beat a protoss. Meanwhile the protoss needs a 10 unit type combination to beat the zerg. Guess what happens:
here's how z will play:
4z5h6m
here's how p will play:
1m2h3y4s5z6c7q8o9l0n
obviously these hotkeys are made up as well as the scenario. The point is that races that may require only a few different types of units may have a WAY easier time macroing than the opposing race who needs to produce a more diverse unit base. The beauty of not having MBS is that it comes as a great equalizer regardless of how your macroing. You still have to make one action for every unit you wish to produce, regardless of how diverse the unit base is.
Again i don't really care if MBS is in sc2 as long as it's not in the multiplayer competitive scene.
Maybe they should make it so that when you have multiple buildings selected it requires you to press the key once for every unit you wanna make.
So that would make a bit less of an imbalance between races that require more diversity
with the same example you used, in order to make 8 zealots, instead of doing: 4z. you would have to do 4zzzzzzzz.
|
On September 05 2007 02:16 Chodorkovskiy wrote:
Very well. Will tipping the balance in favor of micro turn it into a C&C clone?
So you read the notice, and then continue making small posts that contribute next to nothing to the discussion. Take it elsewhere.
Anyway..
I feel that MBS and auto-mining should not be in the game. MBS will obviously not make every player suddenly transform into iloveoov and be able to utilise his amazing feats of macro, but it will make macromanagement considerably easier. I don't think anyone can disagree with that. Depending on how matchups play out in SC2 (for instance, MBS in SC1 in TvP would be ridiculous, all you'd need to do is hotkey 4 factories to 6 and 8 factories to 7. 6t7v done) and on how many units need to be utilised, which appears to be something that Blizzard is trying to address what with the introduction of Hardened Shields and other such abilities, MBS could break the game. Sure, it's not as easy as hotkeying all of your factories/gateways/hatcheries to one key and just hitting a single combination of keys, but hotkeying 3-4 groups of said production facilities and being able to mass-produce units out of them instead of tabbing back to your base to select each one individually is going to be a lot easier.
Will it make the game less enjoyable (enjoyment is subjective, but I feel that's the closest word I can get to describe it)? I think it will, and so does the majority of the forum.
Will it make the game easier to play? This is hard to say. It will make macromanagement easier, for sure, but overall your focus now is probably going to be on the battles you're fighting instead of having to strike a balance between managing your base and managing your fights. I'm not the best of players, and I have to strike a balance between micromanagement and macromanagement because I cannot do both at the same time in a matchup like TvZ, where marines are being pumped constantly and you're fighting battles over expansions and fending off harass all game. You know what? I like it that way. It gives me something to aim for. I am really, really glad that I can't just start playing seriously and do everything perfectly. I'm not saying that MBS will grant me the ability to do anything perfectly, but it will certainly make it easier.
On to the next point of discussion, auto-mining.
In SC1, base management plays a very important role. You have to
1) Make expansions when you deem it fit.
2) Build supply depots/pylons/overlords at regular intervals.
3) Tab back to your base every so often and keep the units pumping from your production facilities.
4) Make sure your workers aren't slacking off at their rally point.
5) Do the above in an efficient manner that doesn't sacrifice all of your micromanagement. This is very hard. This is why oov is regarded as an amazing player, because he can do all of these efficiently. Obviously, this is not all there is to base management, as there are some other minor things that must be addressed (like building placement. Nobody wants their dragoons to be trapped behind pylons), but I feel these are the crucial points.
Now, point 3 is lessened somewhat in that you can probably accomplish the majority of it with hotkeys while your screen is on a battle, so the 'balance' between micro and macro here is being pushed firmly in the favour of micro. I personally don't like that at all. The people who do seem to be in the vocal minority here at TeamLiquid, which is most likely because of the audience it caters to.
Point 4 is completely nullified. Once you've got scvs on all of your starting minerals, you don't have to worry about where your scvs are. You can just pump them and forget about it. I don't really know what the aim of this change is, but the apparent effect is that it simplifies base management in a large way and makes the game easier. I'm not sure if Blizzard wants an easier game, but I know I don't. I really don't feel that the current SC UI is 'outdated' or 'archaic' at all. I think it's doing perfectly fine 9 years down the track.
Just my thoughts. Cheers.
|
SC2 will look like a dinosaur in the gaming industry without standard modern RTS features like MBS and intelligent rallying. One aspect of that I'm especially worried about is that non-SC RTS gamers will be put off by the relatively archaic interface most of you are suggesting for SC2, and the community will be hurt by the loss of that demographic. Also, gamers in general are following the trend of more user friendly interfaces, and Blizzard must consider them because we hardcore SC fans will not form the majority of the people who will be purchasing SC2 (At least outside of Korea).
|
Uhm, I'm not sure that easier macro = micro more important.
It could be that macro becomes even more important, and if you don't keep up you'll lose. Time spent microing perhaps can't compare to time spent macro in terms of output. Why? Improved attack-move, better pathing, and since miners now auto-gather, every time you miss-time unit production the hit will be bigger, since the unit won't sit around idle anyway in your base etc
So imo everything points right now that macro is -more- important than before, not the other way around.
|
On September 05 2007 03:06 Luhh wrote:
Uhm, I'm not sure that easier macro = micro more important.
It could be that macro becomes even more important, and if you don't keep up you'll lose. Time spent microing perhaps can't compare to time spent macro in terms of output. Why? Improved attack-move, better pathing, and since miners now auto-gather, every time you miss-time unit production the hit will be bigger, since the unit won't sit around idle anyway in your base etc
So imo everything points right now that macro is -more- important than before, not the other way around.
Well I guess if you screwed up macro you would be even more behind (since opponents would have much better unit production than before).
However, because much less time is spent macroing than before, a much larger portion of the game will be centered around microing. And becuase unit production and base management is easier, the chances of two average players having similar levels of macro is higher.
When macro is relatively even, the distinction between the two will then come down to the micro, hence making micro more important. In sc1 out macroing your opponent could often result in victory but in sc2 the chances of that happening to an adequate margin is reduced, again making micro more important.
|
Two things. First, something I don't think has been brought up. I've said that reducing macro with things like MBS, automine, building queuing, etc. won't hurt that much if there are other tasks (on the micro side) that are added in order to keep a player busy (or ideally, overwhelmed). The problem is, they seem to be doing the exact opposite:
1) In BW, there's no easy "hard counter" to tanks once mines are up. You need to carefully move command some zealots to drag the mines, or use very micro-intensive zealot drops while you're sending the rest of your force in. In SC2, the immortals shields kick in vs terran metal, and less micro is required.
2) In BW, splash damage is deadly if you don't carefully micro against it. A firebat can kill tons of zerglings, corsairs fry all your mutas, and lurkers annihilate marines. In SC2, Firebats are gone, as are corsairs, and we don't know about lurkers. Even archons seem to have a smaller radius based on the clips I've seen. Sure, there's the phoenix's overload, but that just requires you to move your units once, and might not be used much because of the immobility drawback. You don't have to constantly be microing mutas, making sure no two are touching each other in order to avoid splash.
3) In BW, AoE spells are very powerful, especially when your opponent is occupied with macroing. Storm has a large area of effect, and kills or leaves most zerg units with only a few hit points. Irradiate can decimate a control group of mutalisks, and even less common spells like stasis, ensnare, and plague make it beneficial to carefully space your units when you see a caster around, adding more to the micro side of the game. In SC2, storm is smaller and weaker, irradiate's gone, and stasis appears to be smaller. We don't know about zerg's spells, but given the current trends, I'd be surprised if they weren't all removed or weakened, meaning less micro required because of casters. Disruption web is also gone.
4) There are several other smaller elements that are being removed, like having to remember to train interceptors and scarabs (probably falls under macro though), the micro-intensive lockdown ability is gone, and vulture mines (hugely powerful in the hands of someone with amazing micro) are out. Small things like microing 1 vulture vs several zealots or lings were fun and could change an entire game, but sadly most of the units appear to require LESS micro than in BW. What does that mean? If we shift SC2 towards the most basic micro (moving back weak units and selective targeting), it becomes WC3 micro, but with a few less hitpoints. That's not fun micro. Fun micro mixes in controlling unit formations, dropping some units (reavers, zealots) while attacking with others from the front, casting spells, dodging splash and AoE spells, carefully using multiple control groups, and not having enough time to do it right because you have to manually select each gateway to make more units. It's somewhat frantic, but that adds a lot to the feel and the enjoyment of it. MBS, unlimited unit selection, automine, and hard counters remove or weaken most of these things, even if indirectly.
Granted there are things I'm missing. Blink can probably use a lot of micro, but I don't see it using THAT MUCH more than a goon. From blizzcon, it appears 1 cannon at each base prevents reaper raids, so that's another attempt to add micro that appears to have failed. Other units may appear to have amazing micro-intensive uses that have simply not developed yet because we haven't seen or used them enough, etc.
The second thing I wanted to mention is the claim the pro-automation side is using, saying people against automation are simply being emotional, trying to make the game suit them, and trying to make it a certain way to be the same as the game we love, BroodWar. If anything, it's the exact opposite. As you can see from reading the posts in this thread, it is the ANTI-automation side making well thought-out, concise posts. We are using logic to explain exactly how we believe MBS and other features will affect casual and competitive gaming. It is the PRO-automation side using arguments like "it'll shift it towards other things" and "we can't tell until the game's out." Well what are those other things, and why would that be an improvement? And as for waiting until the game's out, it'll be too late then. They aren't going to patch something like MBS out of the game once it's released, and I DOUBT they'd take it out if it's in the beta testing. The time to use our knowledge and experience of RTS games and features is now. A lot of it IS guessing, but we are making educated guesses based on an insane amount of combined gaming experience. Don't take features out just because you were too slow to master BW, then try to call the other side the irrational, manipulative side.
That's my two cents on the matters, and I don't think that had been mentioned.
Edit x2.
|
Really guys... why keep a outdated interface. It's true if SC2 alot of similar mechanics to SC1 the game would be a dinosaur. Stuff like smart casting auto worker gathering, multiple building selection etc are rather mandatory in this day and age. I don't think it'll hamper competitive play at all, but all we can do is wait and see.
|
The myth is that it takes alot of handspeed to play BW, when it only takes timing. And guess what? You can play the game on normal speed, bet you didnt know about that ^_^. Make ladders for seperate speeds if anything, dont need to make mbs/non mbs ladders when you can just leave MBS out ^_^.
|
On September 05 2007 04:00 HunterGatherer wrote:
The myth is that it takes alot of handspeed to play BW, when it only takes timing. And guess what? You can play the game on normal speed, bet you didnt know about that ^_^. Make ladders for seperate speeds if anything, dont need to make mbs/non mbs ladders when you can just leave MBS out ^_^.
That's actually a great point I hadn't thought of: If you think there's too much macro and clicking, play on the fast game speed. Problem solved.
|
On September 05 2007 04:00 HunterGatherer wrote:
The myth is that it takes alot of handspeed to play BW, when it only takes timing. And guess what? You can play the game on normal speed, bet you didnt know about that ^_^. Make ladders for seperate speeds if anything, dont need to make mbs/non mbs ladders when you can just leave MBS out ^_^.
That is a good alternative. Maybe we will even see different styles of gameplay emerge on different speeds, because it's possible to do more on Fast than it is on Fastest in the same timeframe. I completely forgot about different gamespeeds. I would be in support of seperate-speed ladders/tournaments if it meant MBS was out.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 05 2007 02:16 Chodorkovskiy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2007 02:12 FrozenArbiter wrote:On September 05 2007 02:04 Chodorkovskiy wrote:
Okay...
So let me get this straight: what makes BW so great is having to play despite having to macro, as opposed to the silly notions of strategic depth and faction balance. Therefore, making macro significantly easier will turn SCII into a boring C&C clone with hordes of units rolling over one another. In the end, BW is basically just another RTS, only you have to do absolutely everything yourself. Cue progaming.
Did I come close to accurately describing the sentiment here? Do you try extra hard to miss the point or something? BW is great because it is is all those things, it has strategic depth, it has great demands for dexterity, it is superbly balanced. Very well. Will tipping the balance in favor of micro turn it into a C&C clone?
NO?
It just makes it a worse game!?
On September 05 2007 03:46 YinYang69 wrote:
Really guys... why keep a outdated interface. It's true if SC2 alot of similar mechanics to SC1 the game would be a dinosaur. Stuff like smart casting auto worker gathering, multiple building selection etc are rather mandatory in this day and age. I don't think it'll hamper competitive play at all, but all we can do is wait and see.
I pity the people of the next generation who'll grow up with pussy games where the computer plays for you, since obviously that's where things are headed.
|
On September 05 2007 02:52 H_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2007 02:16 Chodorkovskiy wrote:
Very well. Will tipping the balance in favor of micro turn it into a C&C clone? So you read the notice, and then continue making small posts that contribute next to nothing to the discussion. Take it elsewhere.
You cut me, man. Cut me deep.
On September 05 2007 04:57 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2007 02:16 Chodorkovskiy wrote:On September 05 2007 02:12 FrozenArbiter wrote:On September 05 2007 02:04 Chodorkovskiy wrote:
Okay...
So let me get this straight: what makes BW so great is having to play despite having to macro, as opposed to the silly notions of strategic depth and faction balance. Therefore, making macro significantly easier will turn SCII into a boring C&C clone with hordes of units rolling over one another. In the end, BW is basically just another RTS, only you have to do absolutely everything yourself. Cue progaming.
Did I come close to accurately describing the sentiment here? Do you try extra hard to miss the point or something? BW is great because it is is all those things, it has strategic depth, it has great demands for dexterity, it is superbly balanced. Very well. Will tipping the balance in favor of micro turn it into a C&C clone? NO? It just makes it a worse game!?
Chillax. I may sometimes sound stubborn and deaf to reason, but I'm honestly not. 
In fact, I have mixed feelings about the issue myself. On one hand, something is very wrong with a game, when you need to practice for weeks, before you can simply build an army as fast as the mechanics let you. On the other hand, intensive macro does promote intensive micro, since it sets the pace for the whole game. I think the only reason Blizzard wants to implement these changes, is to make the game appeal to a wider audience than now. I know for a fact, that a lot of gamers shun from BW precisely because of the focus it puts on economy. Naturally, Blizzard would want them to stop doing that and buy the damn game already.
Bottom line: One cannot stand in the way of progress (capitalism). The changes will be made and they will make the game more user-friendly. However, you and others have made a compelling argument for the current state of the UI and I believe Blizzard understands the value of judgement by experienced players. I find it likely, that the game will have a "classic" mode of sorts, only instead of old units, it will feature the old UI. This way, the competitive community can choose for itself.
|
Even on the slowest speed in BW you are handicapped by what you can possibly do. Slower game speeds does not mean less skill, it just means more micro and less macro.Im trying to see the light in MBS but its just not kosher. Panning back to my base away from micro into macro is the whole point of it, and its going to make slower game speeds drop in how rich your gameplay experience is. Its only 1 extra click on iether the minimap or hotkey to make it back to your base.Blizzard is going to install MBS wich causes more bad than good over 1 simple click with your mouse?BW style macro is what needs to be in every next-generation RTS, not this bs we have been seeing!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
