EPTGREAT JOB :D
QnA#17 arrived! - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Equinox_kr
United States7395 Posts
GREAT JOB :D | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
On October 16 2007 08:24 1esu wrote: He means that one of the primary tasks of an RTS designer is to make the gameplay as accessible as possible, as the very nature of RTS games make them harder to learn and play than other genres. Therefore, the design team already has a lot of experience in making accessible gameplay, so that's the "easy" part for them. The "hard" part is keeping the high skill ceiling and longevity in the game, so they're concentrating more on that. In regards to MBS and similar features, I think this means that the very fact they've introduced these interface changes means that they considered the original interface and didn't think it would make for an accessible game, as "ideas must be accessible to be put in the game". Now, they're putting the majority of their design effort into making the game "as challenging as possible" while retaining those features. IMHO, only if they find it impossible to keep a high skill ceiling on the game with the interface changes will they consider returning to the old interface. Starcraft 1 is an accessible game. Just because only accessible ideas are put into the game doesn't imply that what was not in the initial build is inaccessible. I suggest that they put in MBS without much thought, thinking that everyone would like it and it would not be disputed. Hence the cavalier "of course" in the initial QA batches. Later on, when TL raised all those very valid objections, they are much more guarded and circumspect about its consequences. | ||
|
nobodyhome
United States139 Posts
| ||
|
Titusmaster6
United States5937 Posts
| ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On October 16 2007 11:48 nobodyhome246 wrote: I thought #2 was a pretty important question as well. Didn't we have at least one thread here where we discussed how the Thor was too similar to the siege tank in its role? Well it looks like blizzard is thinking about that now too. I especially liked it when they said it might get cut if it isn't good enough. Nice. | ||
|
Krohm
Canada1857 Posts
If air units do stack, that'll be great. That was a issue I was really worried about when it came to SC2. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
 Give it a giant buzzsaw and call it "SCV Giganticus", rewrite fluff to have it being a counter to the zerg melee strains or something. Ta-da! | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On October 16 2007 12:09 Krohm wrote: So Air units will stack? Or did I miss-read the last question... If air units do stack, that'll be great. That was a issue I was really worried about when it came to SC2. Yes, they do stack. They did at blizzcon anyway. | ||
|
gg_hertzz
2152 Posts
| ||
|
Hokay
United States738 Posts
That's what blizzards designing philosophy has been since like forever. This is nothing new folks! | ||
|
Highways
Australia6106 Posts
I also think we need to stop bashing the other questions | ||
|
A3iL3r0n
United States2196 Posts
On October 16 2007 12:27 gg_hertzz wrote: Teamliquid thinks it's own question is the best? How shocking. Not like that actually happens anywhere else in the world. Truth is most people thought it was kind of pretentious in a way. Me included. And the fact that so many liquiders are patting themselves on the back for their brilliance makes it all the more retarded. lol. Wow, stupid people thinking the smart people are pretentious. Oh noes. On October 16 2007 10:56 Ziel wrote: The EU site is definitely down now. And it always gets updated before the US site...so perhaps? :D F55555555555555555555555! I dont think the Colossus-walking-over-buildings puzzle is going to be solveable...it'll be interesting how Blizz fixes this. I think having Colossi being able to walk over depots and bunkers is fine, but nothing else. I mean, they can scale a wall to enter your base which is a surprise move essentially. If they walk over your front door, that's the same thing. | ||
|
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
On October 16 2007 08:24 1esu wrote: He means that one of the primary tasks of an RTS designer is to make the gameplay as accessible as possible, as the very nature of RTS games make them harder to learn and play than other genres. Therefore, the design team already has a lot of experience in making accessible gameplay, so that's the "easy" part for them. The "hard" part is keeping the high skill ceiling and longevity in the game, so they're concentrating more on that. In regards to MBS and similar features, I think this means that the very fact they've introduced these interface changes means that they considered the original interface and didn't think it would make for an accessible game, as "ideas must be accessible to be put in the game". Now, they're putting the majority of their design effort into making the game "as challenging as possible" while retaining those features. IMHO, only if they find it impossible to keep a high skill ceiling on the game with the interface changes will they consider returning to the old interface. Guess it's a mix of both then?  I really hope they do succeed with upping the challenge/skill ceiling of the game. | ||
|
gg_hertzz
2152 Posts
On October 16 2007 12:43 A3iL3r0n wrote: lol. Wow, stupid people thinking the smart people are pretentious. Oh noes. Hey, it's not my fault if you're one of those morons using the 'superior question' to make yourselves look 'smart'. | ||
|
A3iL3r0n
United States2196 Posts
From what little I've seen of the other sites, no other one comes close to what TL provides to the community. Not sure why you're miffed here. A little good-natured self-congratulations is expected. Sure, some people actually believe in their own hype. Some people celebrate with a little wink to themselves. | ||
|
gg_hertzz
2152 Posts
On October 16 2007 13:15 A3iL3r0n wrote: Mmm, all the questions are somewhat important (at least in this round of questioning), but the question about the designer's aim to give the game longevity has to be one of the most important questions asked. I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise. From what little I've seen of the other sites, no other one comes close to what TL provides to the community. Not sure why you're miffed here. A little good-natured self-congratulations is expected. Sure, some people actually believe in their own hype. Some people celebrate with a little wink to themselves. Actually, that question is one of the most predictable. What's their answer suppose to be? "We wanna create a game with the shortest lifespan possible so we can go bankrupt and be the laughing stock of the ecommunity?" How that can be construed as the 'most important' question as opposed to the most obvious one is retarded. And for you to declare self-superiority is...again, pretentious. Note-I'm not knocking the question as all the questions are equally interesting to me. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
But they clearly answered that their effort was directed to the longevity of the game, and that was the feature they were most worried about. They take accessibility much more for granted. People throw around elitism like its a bad word. I take it for granted that people who know what they are talking about, ie, the elite, should have their opinions valued much more. Arrogant elitism is many times better than egalitarian mediocrity. | ||
|
prOxi.swAMi
Australia3091 Posts
btw loved the QnA, thx bliz | ||
Zelniq
United States7166 Posts
| ||
|
Cappy
Canada46 Posts
I think the difference between teamliquid's questions and other fansites is teamliquid asks questions which pertain directly to the foundations of the game itself, rather than any particular feature or unit which, for all we know, will be cut from the final game. Since we have such a strong interest in the competitive side of the game, as opposed to the more casual aspect that most sites are interested in (both of which are important), our questions are directed as such. Also, I think people who would dismiss teamliquid's questions as ones which have obvious answers just don't fully understand the issue (or dismiss it as unimportant, which is pretty much the same). Maybe the general reaction of teamliquid is pretentious (understandable and expected, really), but teamliquid did not pose this question for the sake of being elitist or looking more sophisticated than other sites. We asked this question because this is what's really important to us. | ||
| ||
