|
First off, I want to thank everyone for sending in your feedback from our first ever Monthly Discussion Topic about the Protoss Mothership!
Chat with Devs: After bringing up much community feedback from the last Monthly Discussion, Dustin Browder filled me in on the latest role discussions about the current units in game. This is the thought that has lead to the introduction of the Firebat back into StarCraft II.
Furthermore, they have also changed the Terran Cobras abilities to take on what was previous known as the Protoss Stasis Orb (which is now removed from the game). The Terran Cobra now acts as a slowing unit, with an electrical attack. In addition, many of the units already seen in game are having their roles re-evaluated, to again make sure that every unit has a distinct role in StarCraft II.
As always, feel free to give the Devs and I a w00t if your enjoying these Q&As!
---StarCraft II Q&A Batch 17---
1. Will the defensive matrix of the Terran Nomad apply to enemy units within its AoE (Area of Effect)? (www.starcraft2forum.org)
Yes, the Terran Nomads Defense Matrix ability will affect both friendly and enemy units, thus using this ability on a position that the player can hold will be wise.
2. What helps to delineate the Thor and Battlecruiser as both being high-tier support units? Lots of concern over this duality? (www.starcraft.org)
Currently, the Thor has splash damage, whereas the Battlecruiser has direct damage in its attack. We definitely agree with most of the community that the Thors role overlaps with various other roles on the Terran Faction, thus we may modify that role or possibly cut the unit.
3. Will there be any consideration of having an oceanic battle.net server? (www.starcraft2.com.au)
Unfortunately, this has not been decided yet, as many aspects of Battle.net has still yet to be implemented.
4. Will the Protoss Colossus be able to walk over Supply Depots like over cliffs? (www.broodwar.de)
This is an issue that is still being discussed quite a bit. We like how when enemy units enter your base, they are forced to deal with the layout of your base, but at the same time we are also dealing with the realism factor, where cliff climbing Colossuses ought to be able to step over Supply Depots. Many issues we face are similar to those debated amongst the community, and for this particular topic we dont yet have a final answer.
5. An obvious goal (among many) for Starcraft2 is to maintain the profile of being an E-Sport. What facet do you consider more integral to the growth of that ideal: An extremely high skill ceiling that demands years upon years to achieve mastery, or an extraordinarily large base of interested players to provide the attention that such a sport needs in order to succeed and grow? Obviously both are important, but when it comes to design ideals, what has more pull? Accessibility or Longevity? Mora (www.teamliquid.net)
I think for e-sport we need the high skill ceiling. Though really as you say, both are very important. As designers we have spent years focusing on accessibility. Ideas must be accessible to even be put into the game. So we are just not as worried about making the game accessible. That will happen. What we are focused on, what is the more challenging problem is making the game last for years and years and years. So in our development cycle at the moment, longevity definitely has the larger pull. Longevity is the harder problem to solve, so we put way more effort into making the game as challenging as possible to master. Dustin Browder, Lead Designer of StarCraft II
6. How will unit collision and stacking be handled ? Can flying units pass on top the Colossus or is it blocking ? (www.sc2blog.com)
No, the Colossus will not block a flying unit.
In terms of collision and stacking, units first always follow your order, and when it completes your order, they will stop and spread out. The area in which those units spread out will be slightly less than in the original StarCraft.
Original thread
|
Every other website asks about some crap like mothership and firebat, TL always asks about gameplay and mechanics rofl
|
On October 16 2007 04:54 zonbi wrote:
[5. An obvious goal (among many) for Starcraft2 is to maintain the profile of being an E-Sport. What facet do you consider more integral to the growth of that ideal: An extremely high skill ceiling that demands years upon years to achieve mastery, or an extraordinarily large base of interested players to provide the attention that such a sport needs in order to succeed and grow? Obviously both are important, but when it comes to design ideals, what has more pull? Accessibility or Longevity? Mora (www.teamliquid.net)
I think for e-sport we need the high skill ceiling. Though really as you say, both are very important. As designers we have spent years focusing on accessibility. Ideas must be accessible to even be put into the game. So we are just not as worried about making the game accessible. That will happen. What we are focused on, what is the more challenging problem is making the game last for years and years and years. So in our development cycle at the moment, longevity definitely has the larger pull. Longevity is the harder problem to solve, so we put way more effort into making the game as challenging as possible to master. Dustin Browder, Lead Designer of StarCraft II
Oh please please please remove MBS <3!
|
The answer to question 6 means is extremely vague, but I don't think I like it. I'm not entirely sure if he's talking about air units spreading out or ground units spreading out when they move. I'm really gonna be pushing for the parallel movement behavior either way when the beta drops...
|
MURICA15980 Posts
Yeah I'm happy to say our questions are always the best ones.
|
|
|
"Mommy, why is the sky blue?" www.starcraft2forum.org
"Daddy, why do people die?" www.broodwar.de
"Mother and Father, consider that to say that an agent has free will is to say that the agent has the capacity to choose his or her course of action. But animals seem to satisfy this criterion, and we typically think that only persons, and not animals, have free will. Let us then understand free will as the capacity unique to persons that allows them to control their actions. It is controversial whether this minimal understanding of what it means to have a free will actually requires an agent to have a specific faculty of will, whether the term "free will" is simply shorthand for other features of persons, and whether there really is such a thing as free will at all. What do you think?" www.Teamliquid.net
WTFHAX!
|
lawl, we get an answer straight from Dustin. the other questions are too noob
|
Remove Mass Building Selection please. It turns macro into childs play which is how i win most of my matches. No MBS!!
|
Calgary25986 Posts
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.
|
Can't help but think TL's question was the worst (sorry Mora)... I mean, you can pretty much expect that their answer would be "yes but there has to be a balance between both".
|
On October 16 2007 05:24 JesusCruxRH wrote:
Can't help but think TL's question was the worst (sorry Mora)... I mean, you can pretty much expect that their answer would be "yes but there has to be a balance between both".
Actually, we got a pretty straight-forward answer. Good question Mora.
|
I am really happy with Dustin's answer. Seriously, who can really doubt the accessability of a Blizzard game? Like he said, accessability WILL happen.
They have way more to lose if the game is short-lived. It's not just this one game that's on the line, it's their reputation as one of the best gaming companies around.
|
Stegosaur
Netherlands1231 Posts
I love how Blizzard is actually trying to answer the serious questions, instead of the 'can you change teamcolors?' disillusion we got the first time around =)
Also they seem keen on keeping the stacking units pretty much the same they are (maybe we can find another flaw in the AI like the overlord-magic-box to keep units stacked? Who knows) and even lower the amount of 'unstacking'. I wonder how fast they unstack though and if they actively try to stack, because that would mean we could hit & run without having to resort to flawed AI but have it as a real feature instead =)
Too bad the Banshee volley-attack kind of defeats the purpose of this, but I guess phoenixes and mutalisks would enjoy this if it actually worked like that.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
JesusCrux, I think you've got it completely wrong. Question #5 was definitely the most important question. That's why tl got a reply directly from Dustin Browder, and not just some PR person.
If you read the reply you will also notice that he does not say that both are important. He specifically states that having a high skill ceiling is more important, as everything else will come naturally.
...So in our development cycle at the moment, longevity definitely has the larger pull. Longevity is the harder problem to solve, so we put way more effort into making the game as challenging as possible to master.
Other than that I think question #3 is the second most important to me personally, but question #4 and question #6 have the potential to have a big impact on the game.
|
On October 16 2007 05:16 TheOvermind77 wrote:"Mommy, why is the sky blue?" www.starcraft2forum.org"Daddy, why do people die?" www.broodwar.de"Mother and Father, consider that to say that an agent has free will is to say that the agent has the capacity to choose his or her course of action. But animals seem to satisfy this criterion, and we typically think that only persons, and not animals, have free will. Let us then understand free will as the capacity unique to persons that allows them to control their actions. It is controversial whether this minimal understanding of what it means to have a free will actually requires an agent to have a specific faculty of will, whether the term "free will" is simply shorthand for other features of persons, and whether there really is such a thing as free will at all. What do you think?" www.Teamliquid.netWTFHAX!
I really enjoyed that.
Teamliquid must appear so elite when compared with those other questions.
Good question Mora, though I wonder if maybe it was too vague. It would have been nice to ask if MBS could be togglable, so that the avg players can play money maps with MBS, awhile the competitive players can play without it.
|
Good question & answer to #5. I'm glad he values longevity and takes the E-Sports scene seriously.
I just wonder what he means by "That will happen" for accessibility. Does he mean that it's inevitable that many newbie-friendly features (i.e. MBS) will be included in the game to make the game accessible? Or does he mean that Blizzard is so talented after years of experience that no matter what they do, the game will naturally be accessible?
|
These get better every time. Much love to Blizzard. Who else thinks Dustin is a sexy man?
|
Protoss Stasis Orb (which is now removed from the game)
Praise Adun! I hated the Orb since day one.
Also, as always, much <3 to Blizzard.
|
Very impressive. The more I read what blizzard has to say the more I have faith in the blizzard SC2 team and Dustin Browder. Considering this game isn't even alpha yet I really feel that this game has the potential to surpass SC1. Good work blizz guys!
|
On October 16 2007 05:46 orangedude wrote:
Good question & answer to #5. I'm glad he values longevity and takes the E-Sports scene seriously.
I just wonder what he means by "That will happen" for accessibility. Does he mean that it's inevitable that many newbie-friendly features (i.e. MBS) will be included in the game to make the game accessible? Or does he mean that Blizzard is so talented after years of experience that no matter what they do, the game will naturally be accessible?
i think he means they assume starcraft two will attract a large fan-base without having to have very many noob-friendly features because of it's background, and so they are free to focus primarily on the demands of the pro-scene.
|
Very nice.. I have full faith in Browder! ^^ He seems to have his mind set in the right direction when it comes to this game..
and gogo TL! Most important question as always ^^
|
On October 16 2007 06:17 Meta wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2007 05:46 orangedude wrote:
Good question & answer to #5. I'm glad he values longevity and takes the E-Sports scene seriously.
I just wonder what he means by "That will happen" for accessibility. Does he mean that it's inevitable that many newbie-friendly features (i.e. MBS) will be included in the game to make the game accessible? Or does he mean that Blizzard is so talented after years of experience that no matter what they do, the game will naturally be accessible? i think he means they assume starcraft two will attract a large fan-base without having to have very many noob-friendly features because of it's background, and so they are free to focus primarily on the demands of the pro-scene.
Dustin Browder wrote:
Ideas must be accessible to even be put into the game. So we are just not as worried about making the game accessible. That will happen.
Hmm... you may be right, but the way he worded his answer seems to be slightly contradictory. If SC2 would be accessible simply due to its name, then why must "ideas" be accessible to be even considered for SC2?
I think he means accessible from a design/gameplay perspective, rather than due to hype. Or maybe I'm just reading into his wording a bit too carefully.
|
I thought question #2 was good as well.
As for #6, I think its an important issue as well, because unit stacking will affect AoE in the game.
|
cool shit. very good question Mora.
|
Question #5 is clearly the most important.
I think Dustin has punted on the issue again. He says longevity is important as is having a challeneging game, but he doesn't specifically address any issues.
I guess it is important that he has said longevity > accessibility.
|
Our question wins, and in addition, I'm pleased with the answer.
|
I think it's pretty clear from what he says that it's easy to make the game accesible by improving for example UI and abilities that are easy to understand so they will try to change other things to offset this.
It makes no sense to intrepret the question in any other way (like omg no mbs yes!) because in that case it would be easy to make the challanging which they say it's not.
I definently don't think it was a vauge answer since he did describe their design ideology. They have years of experience on making accesible games that are easy to get into and understand but they aren't really sure on how to make it challenging enough to last for years so they try to focus on that part instead.
I'm just happy that most of the unit abilties will most likely be clear and precise. I hate the kind of stuff that does "25 spike damage per second in a straigth line with 2 second stun and a 4 matrix range but can be broken if caster is hit" kind of stuff that was fairly common in WCIII.
|
Great questions, we clearly pwned everyone else in terms of meaningful contributions.
Some of the Battle.net forumers are pretty resentful of us. I saw a few banned names over there.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
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!
|
The only issue I have at this moment is: "How can I love Blizzard even more then I do at this moment?"
Everything they touch is gold, they so much attract the community in this game, they REALLY REALLY REALLY listen. (firebat back YES).
Damn, my life(ok, ok, my Gameplay life) is perfect with Blizzard around
|
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.
my thought exactly! when I read the questien I felt like they were just gonna give a bullshit answer, but dustin actually answered very distinctly.
|
is awesome32277 Posts
|
Canada7170 Posts
On October 16 2007 04:58 ATeddyBear wrote:
Every other website asks about some crap like mothership and firebat, TL always asks about gameplay and mechanics rofl
Didn't we ask about colour once?
|
CA10828 Posts
thanks for giving a decent answer to our question dustin, TL really appreciates it 
|
On October 16 2007 05:46 orangedude wrote:
Good question & answer to #5. I'm glad he values longevity and takes the E-Sports scene seriously.
I just wonder what he means by "That will happen" for accessibility. Does he mean that it's inevitable that many newbie-friendly features (i.e. MBS) will be included in the game to make the game accessible? Or does he mean that Blizzard is so talented after years of experience that no matter what they do, the game will naturally be accessible?
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.
|
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! dryads are one of the few units in warcraft 3 that are actually well designed
|
On October 16 2007 09:47 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +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! dryads are one of the few units in warcraft 3 that are actually well designed
Thats's when you're using them. He means he doesn't like it when he's on the receiving end =)
|
On October 16 2007 07:32 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Is Starcraft2.com down for anyone else? .. Maybe massive update coming!
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.
|
On October 16 2007 08:24 1esu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2007 05:46 orangedude wrote:
Good question & answer to #5. I'm glad he values longevity and takes the E-Sports scene seriously.
I just wonder what he means by "That will happen" for accessibility. Does he mean that it's inevitable that many newbie-friendly features (i.e. MBS) will be included in the game to make the game accessible? Or does he mean that Blizzard is so talented after years of experience that no matter what they do, the game will naturally be accessible? 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.
qft
|
God why are our questions totally pwning up the Q&A sessions -_-
GREAT JOB :D
|
On October 16 2007 08:24 1esu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2007 05:46 orangedude wrote:
Good question & answer to #5. I'm glad he values longevity and takes the E-Sports scene seriously.
I just wonder what he means by "That will happen" for accessibility. Does he mean that it's inevitable that many newbie-friendly features (i.e. MBS) will be included in the game to make the game accessible? Or does he mean that Blizzard is so talented after years of experience that no matter what they do, the game will naturally be accessible? 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.
|
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'm really liking 5. I agree with their goals 100 percent.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I really like the thor 
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!
|
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.
|
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.
|
hmmm so basically "easy to play hard to master" is what Dustin is saying.
That's what blizzards designing philosophy has been since like forever. This is nothing new folks!
|
Nice Q&A's.
I also think we need to stop bashing the other questions
|
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:Show nested quote +On October 16 2007 07:32 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Is Starcraft2.com down for anyone else? .. Maybe massive update coming! 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.
|
On October 16 2007 08:24 1esu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2007 05:46 orangedude wrote:
Good question & answer to #5. I'm glad he values longevity and takes the E-Sports scene seriously.
I just wonder what he means by "That will happen" for accessibility. Does he mean that it's inevitable that many newbie-friendly features (i.e. MBS) will be included in the game to make the game accessible? Or does he mean that Blizzard is so talented after years of experience that no matter what they do, the game will naturally be accessible? 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.
|
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'.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
eu.starcraft2.com is fine for me
btw loved the QnA, thx bliz
|
United States7166 Posts
Why are some of you acting like #5 was so awesome of a question/answer? Wasn't the answer obvious due the things they've been saying all along about SC2 (in interviews, panels, etc.) and also common sense? (look back to the first part of his answer.. that we can figure out on our own) Wouldn't we rather try to find out what methods they have in place to ensure longevity remains as a defining feature of the game?
|
Regarding #5, Blizzard could also have said that they wouldn't add features for the sake of making it more complicated and harder to master, since poor accessibility would result in a poorer gameplay experience for the user. In other words, accessibility > longevity.
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.
|
BRING THE REAVER BACK!!! and about the mbs thing....will that affect protoss in lategame? cuz dont they just warp in units? im a little confused about that part, but if its how i think it is, you wont have to even select the warpgates to make units. Or am i wrong?
|
their answers dance around the point.....great question though
|
United States7166 Posts
On October 16 2007 14:26 Cappy wrote:
Regarding #5, Blizzard could also have said that they wouldn't add features for the sake of making it more complicated and harder to master, since poor accessibility would result in a poorer gameplay experience for the user. In other words, accessibility > longevity.
I think they'd only say this if UI had been specifically asked in the question. They've made it pretty clear that when it comes to UI enhancements, they favor accessibility over mastery/longevity. That makes sense to me, ideally this is what I want too, as long as they really can find other ways to ensure it really takes a 'lifetime to master.'
However it does seem hard to find non UI-restraining methods to ensure speed remains a crucial part of successful gameplay, I do hope they can figure something out better than I can. (at this point I am predicting that the E-Sports scene of SC2 will include many players with what is considered among the current SC pro-scene as low APM, say perhaps in the 200-250 range).
Which leads straight into what I'd like to ask Blizzard, "With the many UI-enhancements (such as MBS aka Multiple Building Selection) currently planned for SC2, what methods are in place to ensure speed remains as a crucial factor in the game's longevity in the E-Sports world?"
|
Did Blizzard already say if there will be a "magical box" or not? I probably didn't read all the interviews. I'd really like to have it improved in SC2 since it's very, very, veryveryvery, very mucho extremely useful and all that.
And I like this interview. The answers make me a bit more confident.
|
I wonder if they're slightly afraid and holding back on the MBS issue and trying to develop a balanced, challenging and interesting game first, then if the game lacks the elements needed to make it intensive enough they could go ahead and remove MBS (I doubt they could get away with removing auto-mining). Just seems like a good idea to see how far they can take it first before jumping back on an archaic concept (even if it works).
|
The fact that they're willing and considering to cut Thor if it becomes redundant really brings me even more faith in Blizzard, seeing as how that was one of the units that they obviously made the get that "OMFG that's so cool!" reaction from the general public. I hope it doesn't come to that, I like the unit. The complete revamp of Mothership was also ballsy as hell.
Edit: Oh and the Stasis Orb removage - totally saw that coming.
|
Bet the people at blizzard smile a little extra each time they read TL's questions 
Didn't think the answer on #6 was an anwser at all... would like to know how the stacking will be, but then again they prolly dont know themselvs yet...
|
.... Pray that the cobra doesn't become the next dryad... only the most imbalanced unit in wc3 :/
|
South Africa4316 Posts
I'm starting to think that playing SC2 will be a very challenging business (if just on the micro front). Each unit has it's own abilities that have to be effectively used, and even if the abilities are auto-cast like the medic's heal, they still have to be used correctly in battle to be efficient. It sounds like a lot of fun!
|
If Blizzard wants to make the game more intense, better for long term esports they need to innovate and make the game more complex and deeper, which they aren\'t doing right now.
|
On October 16 2007 18:44 Daigomi wrote:
I'm starting to think that playing SC2 will be a very challenging business (if just on the micro front). Each unit has it's own abilities that have to be effectively used, and even if the abilities are auto-cast like the medic's heal, they still have to be used correctly in battle to be efficient. It sounds like a lot of fun!
Can we translate "to be used correctly" with "a-click"?
I wonder what Blizzard would answer...
I don't even see the micro in autocasting, I mean I never did. Using spells will be like attack moving zerglings.
|
There are abilities a unit will be only using on average 1 time before it dies. Therefore, the effect of that ability should be skill-dependent.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
Well, think about medics. Even though they auto-heal, you still need to micro them a bit, and you can do neat things like medic walls etc, or with lurkers, you still need to burrow them correctly. Like this the zealot charge might become a skill to be used correctly, etc.
And I never even mentioned competitiveness or e-sports, so go ride your hobby horse somewhere else. I simply mentioned that it looks like it will be fun to play.
|
I can think of SC2 and say about it what I want, don't even try to shut my mouth.
Medic micro is easy, there's only one reason for many people to not control them properly: they forget about them when microing marines, tanks and vessels. They also forget tanks or vessels. And when they are microing tanks and vessels they tend to forget marines. That's not about how hard it is to control medics, it is actually easy but our ultra-short-term-memory fools us all the time.
For marines, tanks and vessels it is a different story since they have special abilities - or to say spells - which makes a 3rd task/command besides moving and attack moving. That means medics are the easiest unit to control since you don't even have to attack move them all the time, sometimes it's enough to leave them next to the marines. Marines are probably the 2nd easiest, tanks 3rd and vessels 4th.
Now say you leave out the special abilities since they are autocast (stim pack, siege, unsiege, irradiate, matrix) you are left with move and attack move which makes 2 out of 7 possible commands.
2 out of 7 makes such a huge difference I can't even tell. In sc:bw a flawless 7 is a progamer. Now it only takes a 2 to become pro.
I'll cry.
|
On October 16 2007 14:26 Cappy wrote:
Regarding #5, Blizzard could also have said that they wouldn't add features for the sake of making it more complicated and harder to master, since poor accessibility would result in a poorer gameplay experience for the user. In other words, accessibility > longevity.
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.
Very good post, sir. I don't think we should be patting each other on the back already, let's keep up the high level, since this is the way we have any influence (however small) on the design process. Like most, I'm confident that blizzard is going in the right direction. It takes lots of time to make a game that good, and the way blizzard is able to change direction even later on in the design process is unmatched. Not only does it cost a lot of time and money, but it's not that easy to throw some of your ideas and work away.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
Not everything is auto-cast. I simply said that even the autocast abilities can be interesting:
Each unit has it's own abilities that have to be effectively used, and even if the abilities are auto-cast like the medic's heal, they still have to be used correctly in battle to be efficient.
And yes, it is easy to control medics, but if you have 5 different unit types, some with auto-cast abilities, some with click cast abilities it might become more tricky.
The only units with auto-cast abilities will be units with abilities like the medic, or perhaps the slow attack. There is no way that any of the main spells, or even supplementary abilities like charge, could become auto-cast. Thus, while it is easy to micro manage your units when that is your only task, it could be tricky to do in a big battle with a lot going on.
Let me give you an example, the slow attack. While it might be easy to just add a few cobras to your force and let them work on their own, it will be much harder to slow multiple retreating units simultaneously through cloning. Imagine having a battle where you have to constantly drop reaper mines, position your tanks, make sure your medics are actually healing your marines, stim your marines, and clone your cobras so that they can slow multiple units. Obviously that won't happen often, but the fact that almost all the units now have abilities means that the battles could become very intense.
And I didn't tell you to shut your mouth, I told you to ride your hobby horse somewhere else. My post didn't comment on what you were complaining about, I simply mentioned that it could be great fun playing SC2 because of all the unit abilities.
|
On October 16 2007 19:32 Daigomi wrote:Not everything is auto-cast. I simply said that even the autocast abilities can be interesting: Show nested quote +Each unit has it's own abilities that have to be effectively used, and even if the abilities are auto-cast like the medic's heal, they still have to be used correctly in battle to be efficient. And yes, it is easy to control medics, but if you have 5 different unit types, some with auto-cast abilities, some with click cast abilities it might become more tricky. The only units with auto-cast abilities will be units with abilities like the medic, or perhaps the slow attack. There is no way that any of the main spells, or even supplementary abilities like charge, could become auto-cast. Thus, while it is easy to micro manage your units when that is your only task, it could be tricky to do in a big battle with a lot going on. Let me give you an example, the slow attack. While it might be easy to just add a few cobras to your force and let them work on their own, it will be much harder to slow multiple retreating units simultaneously through cloning. Imagine having a battle where you have to constantly drop reaper mines, position your tanks, make sure your medics are actually healing your marines, stim your marines, and clone your cobras so that they can slow multiple units. Obviously that won't happen often, but the fact that almost all the units now have abilities means that the battles could become very intense. And I didn't tell you to shut your mouth, I told you to ride your hobby horse somewhere else. My post didn't comment on what you were complaining about, I simply mentioned that it could be great fun playing SC2 because of all the unit abilities.
I will be happy already when there will be just 4-5 different tasks during a battle in SC2 since this is already the case in some matchups in sc:bw. TvZ is an extreme example I know. I just want to be sure that autocast won't lessen the skill needed for unit control since "auto" always sounds bad in competition.
You didn't explicitly tell me to shut my mouth but using different words doesn't make it different. It's just not ok, I wouldn't tell you to leave the topic either. If you say "mind your own business" that's about the same.
And yes, I also think SC2 will be fun to play because everything just looks so great. I also like RPG's, I don't only look for skilled games. But SC2 should be competitive and that's where I have my doubts about.
To be honest, autocast seems not to be a big danger for the competition. But I don't want to use this topic for that debate, there's another one that is still open.
|
ForAdun there is and will be no autocast for anything more complex than heal.
|
On October 16 2007 20:27 Konni wrote:
ForAdun there is and will be no autocast for anything more complex than heal.
Well, I have heard different stories. Here on tl.net and on gg.net, too.
|
Smartcast, yes. Auto-mining, yes. Autocast, no. Blizzard stated in an interview that anything like storm/siege is too precious to be autocasted at the wrong moment. So they'll leave it as it is.
|
Ok, that sounds good. Where can I get more information about how they want smartcast to work in SC2?
|
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.
|
I see. So I have to take back what I said about autocast, it isn't bad at all as it seems.
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.
|
once again
tl.net question is the best =)
colossus blocking air units was a good question though o.Ó
|
Teamliquid's questions are just fantastic compared to the others. Such excellent depth and they provoke an appropriate answer too.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On October 16 2007 11:46 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2007 08:24 1esu wrote:On October 16 2007 05:46 orangedude wrote:
Good question & answer to #5. I'm glad he values longevity and takes the E-Sports scene seriously.
I just wonder what he means by "That will happen" for accessibility. Does he mean that it's inevitable that many newbie-friendly features (i.e. MBS) will be included in the game to make the game accessible? Or does he mean that Blizzard is so talented after years of experience that no matter what they do, the game will naturally be accessible? 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.
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.
|
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!
|
Accesible doesn't only have to do with UI though. It's mostly about the game behaving the way a first time gamer expects it to behave. I think it's equally important to have clearly defined units and abilities exactly like in Starcraft. If you see a siege mode ability you'd expect it to increase range. If you read that the zealot is a "strong melee figther" you'd expect him to be able to kick most other units once he get's close.
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.
|
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???
|
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 ~.~
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
|
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 ~.~ Show nested quote +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
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.
|
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 ~.~ Show nested quote +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
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.
|
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.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I really hate repair autocast ;/
|
Only reason the medic is autocast is because it casts it's spell so many times for little health healed rather than once for full hp.
|
... they should give more importance to gaming than realism... If something can walk over cliffs... I personally dont want it to walk over buildings even if that would make complete sense...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
