|
[QUOTE]On November 16 2007 23:35 BluzMan wrote:
[QUOTE]On November 16 2007 22:30 Zanno wrote:
[QUOTE]On November 16 2007 21:00 BluzMan wrote:
[QUOTE]On November 16 2007 18:03 Zanno wrote:
[QUOTE]On November 16 2007 16:42 Chodorkovskiy wrote:
[QUOTE]On November 16 2007 14:07 Fen wrote:
Logic - This point isnt as big, but it still is valid. When you order a group of marines to stim, they all do it. When you order a group of ghosts to move, they all do it. Why should only 1 use lockdown when you order a group to do it?[/QUOTE]
Basically, a UI should not doing anything that you would never want it to do.[/QUOTE]
That's quite a bad principle because you don't take the fact that the UI might be crippled by specifically not letting you to do some stuff. Sure, UI is a flexible thing, but just like any other object, it has it's limits. Sometimes you have to let it do something bad to be able to do something good.[/QUOTE]Clarification:
If the UI doesn't let you do something that you would want to do, that's fine. It brings about hackers, but well, who gives a fuck about them.
If the UI does something that you that you wouldn't want it to do, that's not fine.
[/QUOTE]
That's exactly what I'm talking about. There are cases when something you would want do is connected with something you wouldn't want to do and you cannot avoid that connection.
Defilers shouldn't be able to cast swarm at the same spot, right? Now imagine you have 4 defilers, and you see a full-mana Dark Archon approach you. I would definetely want to unload their mana in an instant in that situation, with one click. Sure, the probability of such a situation is very low, but when someone does it, it's pimpest play, the audience is mad. Such is the StarCraft UI - it is outdated, it often does things that you wouldn't want to happen, but it produces pimpest plays. Pimpest plays occur when someone approaches an unique situation and finds an unique solution, it's not just about micro and macro. An open-ended interface is required to allow such solutions. Smart casting is, imo, a step away from open-ended interface, and it will definetely be implemented with general nerfing of spellcasters which is a very bad thing if you consider SC a spectator sport.[/QUOTE]Not only is that a very bad example, it's also very hypocritical.
The main argument for cloning is that it requires more clicks. This one, singular, 1 in 1000 game instance, requires more clicks. You want more clicks overall and then use this situation, which requires more clicks with smartcasting than it does without, as a justification for why smartcasting is bad? Huh?
|
This is the problem now. Smartcasting is another one of the things which decreases the margin between good and bad players. I don't actually see it as a gigantic problem, except if the game is balanced FOR the bad players.
What I mean is, right now good players can cast almost as well without smartcasting, so it doesn't make a big difference to them. In some PvPs you see people walking around with like 1/3 of their army all templar, and they have the ability to use all those storms efficiently. Since storm is so strong now, this is a huge advantage. A noob walking with the exact same army composition has probably just wasted a few thousand in gas.
But if smartcasting is included, more people can do this. Thats not bad per se. But if Blizzard says, oh we have to nerf storm for this, that means that the maximum potential of the spell is decreased, giving it a lower role in the game. The people directly affected are those at the top levels of play, where the slightly increased ease of use does not compensate for the decreased strength of the spell. If you are designing the game for the pros, why balance it using the noobs as the baseline?
|
If your designing it for pro's why not just raise the speed to x2. That would increase the skill gap, rigth?
Get real. Blizzard is not designing this game for pro's. No one designs a game for pro's. No sport have ever been designed purely for pro's. It's a stupid idea because everyone is a beginer at first and no one wants to start doing something that is impossible at first.
Blizzard is all about doing the best games they can. They won't screw over 99,8 % of their audience to please a couple of thousand people tops. A good game is something people enjoy, so the more people who enjoy it the better the game is.
|
On November 17 2007 00:39 Aphelion wrote:
This is the problem now. Smartcasting is another one of the things which decreases the margin between good and bad players. I don't actually see it as a gigantic problem, except if the game is balanced FOR the bad players.
What I mean is, right now good players can cast almost as well without smartcasting, so it doesn't make a big difference to them. In some PvPs you see people walking around with like 1/3 of their army all templar, and they have the ability to use all those storms efficiently. Since storm is so strong now, this is a huge advantage. A noob walking with the exact same army composition has probably just wasted a few thousand in gas.
But if smartcasting is included, more people can do this. Thats not bad per se. But if Blizzard says, oh we have to nerf storm for this, that means that the maximum potential of the spell is decreased, giving it a lower role in the game. The people directly affected are those at the top levels of play, where the slightly increased ease of use does not compensate for the decreased strength of the spell. If you are designing the game for the pros, why balance it using the noobs as the baseline? I think the storm nerf comes down to 3 things
1) shitty alpha maps
2) they want m&m to be viable vs protoss
3) they haven't designed zerg yet, and when they do, they'll realize they can't balance PvZ and have M&M viable TvP at the same time 
|
Just add my two cents to smart casting, I think it should be selective. Mind Control? Fine. Psi Storm? Ehhh no.
I think it all depends on the ability. I'm all for Blizzard playtesting smartcasting, but if a unit because too easy to control (I'm looking at you HT's), then it should be cut for that particular spell. The idea of creating one uber long storm with a few HT's is an interesting option though.
|
On November 16 2007 18:03 Zanno wrote:
Furthermore, the difference between smartcasting and cloning is a quick mouse swipe and a single click.
Just thought I'd correct this. This is true only for a group of 2. If you're cloning a group of say, 9 vessels, the difference is 9 quick mouse swipes and 9 single clicks. If you've only got a few seconds to irradiate 9 lurkers before 25 scourge come flying at your face, this difference of 18 actions would be HUGE. If smartcasting were in SC1, this would be done by pressing "i,right-click target" 9 times, 18 actions. As it is now, it's "i,right-click target, mouse down, shift-click" 9 times. Twice as many actions (36 actions total) in as little as 2 or 3 seconds. Smartcasting makes a huge difference.
Also, smartcasting (as it works in WarCraft III) a spell makes the nearest caster with enough mana/energy cast the spell. So no more searching through your 8 or 9 casters to find the one with enough mana, as it is now in SC. Even more time saved.
|
On November 17 2007 02:15 AlabasterFilth wrote:
this would be done by pressing "i,right-click target" 9 times, 18 actions. As it is now, it's "i,right-click target, mouse down, shift-click" 9 times. Twice as many actions (36 actions total)
Actually it would be left-click. But regardless of that, what do you mean by "mouse down"?
What I saw in Nada's FPvod was "i, click target, select next vessel, repeat" which would make only 27 actions (which doesn't change the fact that you have to swing your mouse back and forth much more than with smartcasting).
|
On November 17 2007 02:42 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2007 02:15 AlabasterFilth wrote:
this would be done by pressing "i,right-click target" 9 times, 18 actions. As it is now, it's "i,right-click target, mouse down, shift-click" 9 times. Twice as many actions (36 actions total) Actually it would be left-click. But regardless of that, what do you mean by "mouse down"? What I saw in Nada's FPvod was "i, click target, select next vessel, repeat" which would make only 27 actions (which doesn't change the fact that you have to swing your mouse back and forth much more than with smartcasting).
yeah, right-click, my bad.
"mouse-down" meaning move the pointer away from the battlefield, and into the HUD, so that you can shift-click the next unit. This "mouse-down" does NOT have to be done with smartcasting. It's not technically an action, but it requires just as much "action" as a click imo.
If you individually select each unit and cast, yes it would require less action. I was merely comparing the difference between smartcasting and cloning (defined as using the shift-click method of making a group of units do different commands).
However, you bring up a good point. Smartcasting is even an improvement over individually selecting units. With smartcasting, you're only moving your mouse around to find your next target. With individually selecting, you're moving your mouse around to both select your casters AND target units. Smartcasting still saves time; the effect is greater with the more caster units you have. Lastly, individually selecting means there's a chance you could accidentally select a caster that doesn't have enough energy (wasted actions).
Edit: case in point. I used to clone my workers to separate mineral patches when maynarding over to a new expo. I don't anymore, I just select 8-12 workers and right-click a mineral patch and continue on. Why? Because cloning takes up huge amounts of apm to do, and I'm not good enough to do it quickly. Well there's a facet of StarCraft that separates me from good players. It's an example of the skill gap in action. Imagine if smartcasting was applied to the 'mine' command. Select 12 workers, right-click each mineral patch, done. Much less work than cloning. I agree with most that smartcasting inherently takes away some of the skill that is present in SC currently, and I hope that Blizzard finds a way to balance the quickness of smartcasting with the power of caster units (or any units with smartcasting abilities).
|
I've just realized that arguing about sci vessels and irradiate won't do much since most likely there won't be any sv's in SC2. Up to our current knowledge the only units affected by smartcasting would be: ghost (if it still has lockdown), ht (obviously), battlecruiser and perhaps a medic (if they still have blind).
So far it's just easier storm/yamato.
|
On November 17 2007 04:47 Manit0u wrote:
I've just realized that arguing about sci vessels and irradiate won't do much since most likely there won't be any sv's in SC2. Up to our current knowledge the only units affected by smartcasting would be: ghost (if it still has lockdown), ht (obviously), battlecruiser and perhaps a medic (if they still have blind).
So far it's just easier storm/yamato. well in case you weren't paying attention it appears that ghosts have an ability that brings zealots down to 1 hp so i'm pretty sure powerful abilities are still in the picture!
|
On November 16 2007 15:59 NotSorry wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2007 14:47 BlackSphinx wrote:
Well, what's better? 1 very good psi storm or a guy managing to land 8 perfectly placed weaker psi-storms, in the same amount of time, dealing the same damage?
One of em requires more skill and thought, surprisingly, and it's the one with smartcasting.
Smartcasting will not reduce the amount of mass deaths incured by spells in SC2, the lack of heavy destrucion spells was a feature of WC3 more than anything. It has also the added bonus of making balance easier. How goes your B attempts? Considering the difference between smartcasting and someone cloning is a very small fraction of a second. Don't know where you get this 8 to 1 ratio. I'm slow as hell and I assure you I could get at least 4-5 clone and cast very good psi storms off before you could get 8 perfectly placed ones off. Cloning takes more skill and thought, smart casting just makes it easier to do. Something made easier, doesn't increase the skill to use it, in fact it decreases the skill needed. Which when added with all other things they are adding to decrease the skill needed to do things, you end up with a very low skill ceiling and an extremely boring game and thats not even getting into the balancing issues it brings up.
Answer to 1st question: Bad. Heavier competition than expected, being solid in WC3 and DoW was all fine and dandy but I gotta unlearn stuff to learn this game, namely that leaving your units alone for a while just to make more is a good thing. Will get through though, found people to help me progress, however my mass gaming didn't happen yet. Small RL problems.
Chances of me posting the "I suck" thread is currently 95%. At least I'm honest.
Now, on smartcasting, 8-1 is an example. But I can cast 8 AMS on my units in about 2 second (WC3, smartcast).
Now, what I mean is that smartcasting doesn't really removes the skill required to use a spell if it's balanced to require skill properly. In short, if the time required to land a spell and it's total effect are the same with smartcast and without, there is no skill required difference. Basically, the mechanic itself is not bad, but how Blizzard handles it can lead to problems. I doubt it will though, as it will create imbalance.
Now, very low skill ceiling though might be pushing it. There is still no autocast. They have no plan of putting any skill autocast, except medic healing, which is fine.
|
On November 16 2007 14:22 Zanno wrote:
The problem with stupid casting is that targeted spells don't stack.
If casting 12 lockdowns meant that unit would be locked down for 12x the duration, it'd be fine.
if casting 12 storms on the same spot stacked, which it did in beta testing, it'd be fine. Who knows what other spells stack in the past. Irradiate does, perhaps Dmatrix, Lockdown, and every other spell used to stack?
I don't care how much you like cloning, I don't care if you think the old system takes more skill, the old casting UI is an *artifact* of old spellcasting behavior in early builds of the game, and unlike MBS, there is 0, that's right, zero zero zero zero FUCKING ZERO PERCENT chance of this being removed. It's not worth debating.
Please dont make these kind of posts. They lower the quality of this forum.
I do have to agree that spells should be very strong, very fast and gamechanging.
Not a fan of smartcasting, but I care a lot more about mbs to be honest.
Personally, I think if they have smartcasting, they should do it the same way they do now with magic boxes and formations.
Obviously the magic box would have to be bigger, but even if you could smartcast during a battle by careful selection of units, you would still have to make the choice before battle to focus on macro, or rearange your units.
|
On November 17 2007 12:05 fusionsdf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2007 14:22 Zanno wrote:
The problem with stupid casting is that targeted spells don't stack.
If casting 12 lockdowns meant that unit would be locked down for 12x the duration, it'd be fine.
if casting 12 storms on the same spot stacked, which it did in beta testing, it'd be fine. Who knows what other spells stack in the past. Irradiate does, perhaps Dmatrix, Lockdown, and every other spell used to stack?
I don't care how much you like cloning, I don't care if you think the old system takes more skill, the old casting UI is an *artifact* of old spellcasting behavior in early builds of the game, and unlike MBS, there is 0, that's right, zero zero zero zero FUCKING ZERO PERCENT chance of this being removed. It's not worth debating. Please dont make these kind of posts. They lower the quality of this forum. I do have to agree that spells should be very strong, very fast and gamechanging. Not a fan of smartcasting, but I care a lot more about mbs to be honest. Personally, I think if they have smartcasting, they should do it the same way they do now with magic boxes and formations. Obviously the magic box would have to be bigger, but even if you could smartcast during a battle by careful selection of units, you would still have to make the choice before battle to focus on macro, or rearange your units. I'm sorry I'm lowering the quality of your forum by not participating in the "antiquated UIs take more skill than modern ones, gogogo cloning!" circlejerk. I'm ambivalent about MBS until I see it in practice (though I think some of the arguments against it are very flawed) but I have a very strong opinion on smartcasting and that opinion is it's not worth debating. The single target spellcasting UI is flat out bugged (not AOE, imo that's only bugged when it's not magic boxing, so it looks like we agree on that issue) and I was absolutely baffled that they didn't fix it alongside when they backported right click rally and minimap pinging from the war3 engine.
|
United States5262 Posts
Can't Blizzard have all the noobie features us SC purists have as noobie OPTIONS. Like you can turn them on if you can't handle the pure SCness of it? Competitions of course should be without it.
|
On November 17 2007 12:30 Zanno wrote:
I'm sorry I'm lowering the quality of your forum by not participating in the "antiquated UIs take more skill than modern ones, gogogo cloning!" circlejerk. I'm ambivalent about MBS until I see it in practice (though I think some of the arguments against it are very flawed) but I have a very strong opinion on smartcasting and that opinion is it's not worth debating. The single target spellcasting UI is flat out bugged (not AOE, imo that's only bugged when it's not magic boxing, so it looks like we agree on that issue) and I was absolutely baffled that they didn't fix it alongside when they backported right click rally and minimap pinging from the war3 engine.
My opinion is close to yours, however I believe the reason why people here do not enjoy your posts are the way you present your opinion. Less aggressivity might be a good idea ^_^. Nobody told me I lowered the quality of the forum, despite my MBS and smartcast affection, as well as my (still) overall newbieness to SC, even though I played the game at release.
Now, when it comes to a game that might very well change the landscape in Gaming as to make it a mainstream spectator sport (or E-sport, if you feel like nitpicking), I believe listening to every opinion is important. Yes, smartcast will be in, however people here want to discuss it's implications on gameplay and the fact that they like these implications in SC style gameplay, or don't like them, and why, and it is not the decision of any crowd, for or against, to decide if the point desserves to be looked at or not.
Keep in mind that everybody, as I see, in these forums take gaming seriously and enjoy the competitiveness, whether they participate actively in it or not, and opinions of diehard fans should always be taken in account, especially if said competitiveness is at stake. I do not believe these additions will make the game bad on it's own if handled correctly, but if it is the opinion of other informed veteran gamers than it is, well, I listen.
Then I try to break their points. Kinda more fun to discuss than to fight, really.
|
On November 17 2007 12:56 jkillashark wrote:
Can't Blizzard have all the noobie features us SC purists have as noobie OPTIONS. Like you can turn them on if you can't handle the pure SCness of it? Competitions of course should be without it.
Well, think for a second of SC1 with MBS/Smartcast/Automine/etc...
Imagine the imbalancefest that would follow.
UI has a lot to say about balance, and thus Blizzard would be stuck with a dillema. Balance for newbies, or balance for pros. Balance for pros, and newbies leave the game, it gets bad reviews and the game won't rise. Balance for newbies, and pros won't bother as much because they'll feel shafted, and top WC3 players will return to WC3, and top SC1 players will return to SC1.
Moreover, this is creating a rift between groups of players, and that's never good.
I believe that while on paper a toggle might be good, in reality it's implications would go way too far to make it worthwhile.
|
On November 17 2007 05:42 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2007 04:47 Manit0u wrote:
I've just realized that arguing about sci vessels and irradiate won't do much since most likely there won't be any sv's in SC2. Up to our current knowledge the only units affected by smartcasting would be: ghost (if it still has lockdown), ht (obviously), battlecruiser and perhaps a medic (if they still have blind).
So far it's just easier storm/yamato. well in case you weren't paying attention it appears that ghosts have an ability that brings zealots down to 1 hp so i'm pretty sure powerful abilities are still in the picture!
Lockdown a carrier or bring down one zealot to 1hp, hmm... I don't know about you but I sense a major difference in the power level of this 2 skills.
|
i am really lost in the comments... but if you guyz want 30 scourge to hit 15 mutas when you select 30 scourges and right click on 15 mutas without doing anything else, then forget it... this isnt sane... cloning should be there, and also the same goes for ghosts. you select 30 ghosts order lockdown and all 30 (if all of them have the enough energy) they will lock down.. it is that simple..no need to change this... if you want to lockdown 12 battlecruisers either you have to clon your 12 ghosts, or hot key them... thats the way, else we wont jump in our chairs, when boxer locksdown 9 or so battlecruisers faster than the eye can flick, we will just look at it and say "ye, an other lockdown so what"... just think about it... i didnt read all the comments so i might be repeating something said so sorry for that
|
On November 17 2007 21:40 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2007 05:42 Zanno wrote:On November 17 2007 04:47 Manit0u wrote:
I've just realized that arguing about sci vessels and irradiate won't do much since most likely there won't be any sv's in SC2. Up to our current knowledge the only units affected by smartcasting would be: ghost (if it still has lockdown), ht (obviously), battlecruiser and perhaps a medic (if they still have blind).
So far it's just easier storm/yamato. well in case you weren't paying attention it appears that ghosts have an ability that brings zealots down to 1 hp so i'm pretty sure powerful abilities are still in the picture! Lockdown a carrier or bring down one zealot to 1hp, hmm... I don't know about you but I sense a major difference in the power level of this 2 skills.
Considering Lockdown was higher up the tech tree than Carriers, whilst Snipe is somewhere on the SC1 Academy level and costs a quarter of the energy, I'd say the latter is pretty powerful.
|
The way I see it the problem with smartcasting is as follows:
in BW when a zerg army attacks a toss army the toss tries to storm as much as possible as the zerg closes in. His success is largly dependant on his HT formation before the batte, his mouse speed and his abilities to read the movements of the zerg forces.
The zerg on the other hand desperatly tries to dodge the storms and perhaps even trick the toss into storming in places where he has no intention of actually moving his units.
This creates a battle of skill between the two players. And the actual number of HP points in dmg that "psi storm" deals in a giving battle varies heavily according to the players and their micro skills on that particular day and second. Thus creating a tension before the fight and making BW exiting.
What I am afraid will happen with smartcasting in SC2 is that as the zerg moves in the toss will simply in 1 second cover the attack route with storms. The zerg won't be able to dodge, and the toss will have a much harder time screwing upp, resulting in a smaller skill gap and less pimpest play moments.
The average damage dealt to the zerg forces will probably be the same in the two games (adjusted for balance etc) But I believe that the average game in sc2 will see MUCH smaller deviations from that value than the average game in BW, and to me that seems booring.
Personally I would much prefer a solution where smartcasting were removed and the spells stacked. (aka 12 lockdowns locks for longer than normal duration, probably not with a linear dependance.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
