EPTQnA#17 arrived! - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On October 16 2007 20:52 ForAdun wrote: Ok, that sounds good. Where can I get more information about how they want smartcast to work in SC2? Play warcraft 3, or read: http://www.battle.net/war3/basics/specialcommands.shtml + Show Spoiler + You can use "special" commands for individual units without having to deselect your group. When multiple unit types are in a group, any basic order (Move, Attack, etc) given to group will be completed by the entire group. You will also have a subgroup selected. This means one unit TYPE will have his special commands available in your command card (spells, inventory, etc). If you use one of these buttons only the units with that ability will use the command. Pressing Tab will select the next subgroup (i.e. next subgroup of lesser or equal priority) Pressing Shift-Tab will select the previous subgroup (i.e. previous subgroup of greater or equal priority) The portrait model will change to represent the selected subgroup. This way you can always tell which subgroup is active. Subgroups are sorted by priority, with the highest priority units being placed first, and lowest being placed last. You can select your subgroup in the info card. When units of different types are group selected, you will see which unit type is in a subgroup by the size and highlight of the unit's portrait. To select a new subgroup, LEFT-click a new unit type (you will see all these units now have a big portrait and highlight). To select an individual unit, you must first select that unit type (to subgroup them) and then Left-click on the unit portrait. If you have multiple casters in a subgroup and give them the command to cast a spell, only ONE of the casters will be given the order to cast the spell. For example, if you had 3 Sorceresses selected and wanted them to cast 2 Polymorphs on different targets, this would be extremely easy to do without having to break subgroup. You can cast spells on units in subgroups by casting or selecting a spell and LEFT click on a unit portrait that in the group selection. Example: Your subgroup contains a Lich and some Ghouls. Press Tab until the Lich shows up. LEFT click on Frost Armor then Left click on a Ghoul in the status window subgroup. Were the bolded is what smartcast is, the rest is to explain what subgroups are. Also note that smartcast is dependant on spell type, selfcasts (Such as siege or burrow or stim) works just like starcraft since thats the most logical way. As for autocast, they use the same rulse as they used for wc3: + Show Spoiler + How do you decide which spells are Autocast? 1) The spell must have an easy and consistent rule that we can apply for the casting AI, so the player can easily predict how his casters will act. 2) High Mana cost spells are not made Autocast since they require a higher level of decision making to cast. It is easy to say all enemy units should be slowed, but we do not want to decide which unit should be polymorphed. 3) Spells that would be menial to cast are generally made Autocast. For example, in Warcraft II the player had to manually cast heal and bloodlust, despite the fact that the player would want to cast these spells in every battle if they had the click reflexes to do so. | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
But smartcast has some flaws imo. I think it makes a group of spellcasters too easy to control. In sc:bw it's a big blunder if you select a few Science Vessels and cast Irradiate on a single target, the same counts for any other spell. I saw progamers mess up Psi Storm here and there because they double-clicked their High Templars by accident. Without things like that I wouldn't have the feeling to watch humans play, but that's exactly what I want. I want to see progamers blunder, too. | ||
|
Kacas
Brazil3143 Posts
tl.net question is the best =) colossus blocking air units was a good question though o.Ó | ||
|
HaXxorIzed
Australia8434 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On October 16 2007 23:08 HaXxorIzed wrote: Teamliquid's questions are just fantastic compared to the others. Such excellent depth and they provoke an appropriate answer too. Eventhough the answer didnt say more than: We focus more on accessability than competetiveness, but since our whole core is structured in such a way that everything has to be accessable to even be put into the game we work really hard to find the accessable things wich make for good long term competition. Wich in the end says: "We wont deny either", wich is the only answer to this question from any developer who wants to keep his fanbase and an answer anyone couldve told you they would give a week ago. However he worded it in such a way that both sides would think he favors them, Dustin is really a master of words. | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On October 16 2007 23:38 Fen wrote: Well what did you expect him to turn around and say? The questions are not specifically to get answers on gameplay specifics, more to let them know that this is what we think is important, and that it is something that the blizz team should be paying close attention to. Yeah, i just mean that the answer wasnt really saying anything. The big thing was that they choosed that question showing that they are aware of this communitys concerns, then that Dustin talks like the oracle so that everyone interprets it as if Dustin is on their side is just a bonus. | ||
|
1esu
United States303 Posts
On October 16 2007 11:46 Aphelion wrote: 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. Yeah, I figured you'd respond to that second part, which is why I was worried about putting it in in the first place; I don't want to start another MBS discussion. ^^ You're right about SC1 being an accessible game, but that's because the interface is manipulable in two ways: point-and-click, and hotkey-based. The former is designed for new players and is extremely accessible, while the latter is designed for experts and is relatively inaccessible. Thing is, to learn low-money SC nowadays you have to learn the hotkey-based method, since that's what everyone uses. That's why I consider the SC interface to now be "inaccessible". And please, please don't think that Blizzard didn't seriously consider keeping the original interface before making changes to it; that is an insult to the extremely high level of design experience behind SC2. The "of course" was a response by the community manager, not a direct quote from the designers, and was in response to a question about automine, not MBS. They could have equivocated and said that accessibility and longevity were both equally important. Or they could have said that accessibility was the first priority, and that a non-accessible game would not last long, thus dodging the question. 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. Actually, he says at the beginning that accessibility and longevity are both very important. It's just that the designers behind SC2 already have a ton of experience in designing accessible RTSs, so they're putting the majority of their design effort behind making the game as hard to master as possible from that accessible base. Elitism, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. For example, I take well-reasoned arguments from players like Nony very seriously, even though I give more credit to the words of professional RTS designers, since they have much more experience at designing RTS games than hardcore RTS players. Arrogance, on the other hand, is an extremely bad thing. It effectively shows that the arrogant elitist cannot view the game impartially, an ability which is essential to designing a good game. Therefore, I take an arrogant poster's arguments much less seriously than a non-arrogant poster, on both sides. | ||
|
Q(-_-Q)
United States348 Posts
On October 16 2007 05:21 Chill wrote: Nice. I'm glad they didn't go the route I was expecting, which "Well, they're both very important and we take them equally into consideration." It's nice to cut through the PR bullshit. It's nice to get an answer to a question. AMEN! | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2817 Posts
Same thing for abilities. Far to many strategy games make mistakes with having units fullfill their roles in weird ways that totally turn people off from the game. I'm actually a bit worried about some of the new units for this reason. | ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
On October 16 2007 07:32 FrozenArbiter wrote: Hrm, I wonder how the slow-down of the Cobras will work. I'm not super keen on having slow on a normal unit that you can mass produce, cause it's kinda boring to micro slow units :D Is Starcraft2.com down for anyone else? .. Maybe massive update coming! In general, I don't like auto-slowed units either. It's just annoying for me personally. Keep the speed... or make slow a spell that you cast like the Queen's ensnare I say. Then it's annoying but at least it took effort. I'll agree with the other posts that it was quite nice to get a non-BS answer about the consideration of competitive play. I'm glad they are sticking to their guns. And now... I wonder what the Protoss are getting now that they lost two new units from the original announcement. Where is the other ground caster and will the mothership become the only air caster??? | ||
|
InRaged
1047 Posts
On October 17 2007 05:21 Blacklizard wrote: And now... I wonder what the Protoss are getting now that they lost two new units from the original announcement. Where is the other ground caster and will the mothership become the only air caster??? So time ago Karune said both terran and protoss have bunch of new spells we have no idea about. Seeing how now, in this q&a, he readily throws specific information about units I'm pretty interested will he as readily answer about these new spells :3 | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On October 17 2007 06:21 InRaged wrote: I'd rather see new info about units/spells and mechanic tweaks than reading long pretentious question forwarded by as long, predictable and tricky answer ~.~ So time ago Karune said both terran and protoss have bunch of new spells we have no idea about. Seeing how now, in this q&a, he readily throws specific information about units I'm pretty interested will he as readily answer about these new spells :3 They are probably saving them for a mag or an event or something else they get money from, just throwing them out to the public like that hasnt happened before unless it was a leak. | ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
On October 17 2007 06:21 InRaged wrote: I'd rather see new info about units/spells and mechanic tweaks than reading long pretentious question forwarded by as long, predictable and tricky answer ~.~ So time ago Karune said both terran and protoss have bunch of new spells we have no idea about. Seeing how now, in this q&a, he readily throws specific information about units I'm pretty interested will he as readily answer about these new spells :3 Thank you for the info! I figured they were holding on to more spells and abilties, but it's good to see it confirmed. I can sleep better once again. It must be a real bitch for the devs to go through the buffs and nerfs in the pre-alpha process... losing your favorite units, etc. | ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
As for autocast, they use the same rulse as they used for wc3: + Show Spoiler + How do you decide which spells are Autocast? 1) The spell must have an easy and consistent rule that we can apply for the casting AI, so the player can easily predict how his casters will act. 2) High Mana cost spells are not made Autocast since they require a higher level of decision making to cast. It is easy to say all enemy units should be slowed, but we do not want to decide which unit should be polymorphed. 3) Spells that would be menial to cast are generally made Autocast. For example, in Warcraft II the player had to manually cast heal and bloodlust, despite the fact that the player would want to cast these spells in every battle if they had the click reflexes to do so. Half the fun of war2 was casting lust or heal!!!  (((( Heal was weaker, but that was a design/balance problem... bloodlust just too good. In BW, i can't blame medics for having auto-cast b/c for ease of use since BW is just so fast paced and has so much for you to do. But I don't see anywhere else that autocast would be a good or FUN thing. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
| ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
| ||
|
MyTHicaL
France1070 Posts
| ||
| ||
