EPT[D] Smartcasting - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Manit0u
Poland17270 Posts
| ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
However if they increase the already huge damage to make up for the reduced aoe while at the same time keeping the mana and resource cost of HTs constant it might even be _better_ for skill disparity, we shall see. I am very afraid they'll go down the lower aoe + lower dmg route order to make up for smartcasting though. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 17 2007 23:46 rick the dangerous wrote: 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 This smartcasting would only apply to spells, if you want to clone scourges, you still have to do it the normal way. Yeah, for ghosts it would work like that, you take 12 ghosts and click lockdown 12 times, and they lockdown 12 bcs. I dunno, I don't really like it myself but I agree with the people who said this isn't changing.. I just don't see blizzard taking this out of the game. Yeah, lockdown might not be as impressive anymore but oh well, it's not as big of a change as - for instance - mbs is, I can live with it. | ||
|
Duke
United States1106 Posts
| ||
|
NatsuTerran
United States364 Posts
| ||
jkillashark
United States5262 Posts
On November 17 2007 14:08 BlackSphinx wrote: 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. Ah icic. Thanks for the response. To be honest, I'm probably a complete noob with all the SC2 stuff. It's so much work trying to keep up with haji's StarCraft TiVo, school, and work as it is already! | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
P.S. Magical boxes kick smartcast's ass, it's more useful but still requires timing and "traditional" micro to use. magical boxes thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=33677 | ||
|
randombum
United States2378 Posts
Like others have said smartcasting will make it more accessible for the newbs, but it will also help the non-pro players too. The only thing smartcasting would hurt is pro scene difficulty. Hopefully there will be something else for pros to spend their super handspeeds on. | ||
|
garmule2
United States376 Posts
Smartcasting doesn't make the game 'easier'. It simply makes the game 'possible'. | ||
|
EmS.Radagast
Israel280 Posts
Smartcasting doesn't make the game 'easier'. It simply makes the game 'possible'. According to this board's powerful groupthink, it's actually a _good thing_ that you're entirely unable to do certain moves if your APM isn't at least 400. That's good for the Skill Gap(TM). Same logic as to why it's good Zerg loses masses of lings stupidly because he has no hope of properly microing them all with the horrible interface, I mean just getting them all to move at once is hard. Obviously the game was balanced with this in mind, but stating this as a strength of BW's design is quite laughable in my opinion. Yet, it seems most people here would disagree :/ | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 21 2007 07:04 EmS.Radagast wrote: According to this board's powerful groupthink, it's actually a _good thing_ that you're entirely unable to do certain moves if your APM isn't at least 400. That's good for the Skill Gap(TM). Same logic as to why it's good Zerg loses masses of lings stupidly because he has no hope of properly microing them all with the horrible interface, I mean just getting them all to move at once is hard. Obviously the game was balanced with this in mind, but stating this as a strength of BW's design is quite laughable in my opinion. Yet, it seems most people here would disagree :/ If you group select 50 lings they'll die the same as if you had 5 hotkeys of them, aint no interface improvement in the world that will stop that from happening short of you controlling each ling individually with your thought. In fact, keeping them in smaller groups is probably going to cut down on the casualties. | ||
|
caution.slip
United States775 Posts
On November 21 2007 07:50 FrozenArbiter wrote: If you group select 50 lings they'll die the same as if you had 5 hotkeys of them, aint no interface improvement in the world that will stop that from happening short of you controlling each ling individually with your thought. In fact, keeping them in smaller groups is probably going to cut down on the casualties. The problem is that using 5 of your control groups for lings limits your ability to macro/do other stuff with them. When i play zerg i'll group what i can (4 groups max) and i have to box select minimap move the rest. The problem is when i'm moving my army and i run into the other army, the process of retreating to regroup the units often ends in more casualties than necessary had i been able to group all the units. As for locking down BCs, its better to just hotkey each one and then redo your other hotkeys. Thats how boxer did his lockdown if i recall. | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
On November 20 2007 05:33 garmule2 wrote: Smartcasting is not important to pros, as they already had the capability to clone more or less instantaneously. Smartcasting is important to players from mid-level to great players. That group includes me. I have always been VERY disappointed at SC's lack of smartcasting, because a wide variety of caster uses are simply not possible for me and thus a few important strategies are unavailable - such as making a few ghosts to counter a fleet of BCs. The problem with cloning is timing - to have all the lockdowns go off at once, your ghosts must be moving while you're cloning. This requires space and a clear path. 95% of the time, the BCs simply kill all my ghosts before i even finish cloning. This problem applies to medics with their restorate ability as well - it is ultimately useless because of the micro involved. Even pros hardly use restorate. Smartcasting doesn't make the game 'easier'. It simply makes the game 'possible'. Well this is how the game is designed. Why should a unit that costs 50 mins 75 gas (sorry if thats wrong) be able to counter a lategame unit which costs 400 mins 300 gas (sorry once again, not a terran player). Spellcasters in starcraft 1 were designed to be a unit that you gamble with. On one side, you could use a group of spellcasters to devestate a group of units way more expensive than them, and on the other side, they could die without even denting the enemy. The skill required to use spellcasters effeciently was high, and therefore allowed spells to be very strong without being overpowerwd. Smartcasting damages this a lot, because effective use of spells will be expected and not a sign of skill in execution. | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
On November 21 2007 23:08 Fen wrote: Well this is how the game is designed. Why should a unit that costs 50 mins 75 gas (sorry if thats wrong) be able to counter a lategame unit which costs 400 mins 300 gas (sorry once again, not a terran player). Spellcasters in starcraft 1 were designed to be a unit that you gamble with. On one side, you could use a group of spellcasters to devestate a group of units way more expensive than them, and on the other side, they could die without even denting the enemy. The skill required to use spellcasters effeciently was high, and therefore allowed spells to be very strong without being overpowerwd. Smartcasting damages this a lot, because effective use of spells will be expected and not a sign of skill in execution. Exactly. Expectation is likely the biggest minus to smartcasting. Anyone remember how it felt when Savior was dominating? At first it was interesting and exciting but after a while it got a bit boring to see him knock down everybody. People were amazed and pissed at the same time. Savior's games were shiny but the result was just... expected. People "knew" the results before the games ended. As long as the games lasted they were great but when they ended the Savior-haters were disgusted and his fans weren't too satisfied either. Happy but not satisfied. It felt like some sort of hate-love. This is what smartcasting would do to SC2. As much as the feature itself sounds like a good idea for beginners and amateurs - it makes the game less speculative thus less spectacular. The crowds won't like spellcasters so much anymore. Of course at first they won't have that feeling since SC2 will be a new, fascinating game but when they see all the spellcasters act the same way in any battle over and over again they will realize how unsatisfying they are compared to the good old - and sometimes stupid - spellcasters in SC. Have you ever seen Reach trying to pull off genious storms in the past? At times his storms were freaking awesome but in the next moment they went into nothingness because he always tried to win the battle of the minds. In SC2 we will never see a player with Reach's personality again. Why? Because it will be made impossible to show personality with a feature that doesn't let us try things on our own. Failor is one of the most important things in life. If we don't fail and if we don't see people fail, then we don't learn. If there's only light and everyone's staring into the light - what's left? | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
Id belive that having ~100 pop casters(Including the semi casters with only 1 spell) will be quite common in starcraft 2 pro games, something wich would be impossible to handle in starcraft is now possible but extremely hard. | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On November 22 2007 00:34 ForAdun wrote: Ok. Your post doesn't deserve any better comment. Just ok. But you do realise that when both sides in the combat have 4 types of units with spells each and ~10 of each of them the act of casting those spells will get much harder than before? Since in sc1 it was never viable to have that many casters, instead you took a few of your race most powerfull one and spend all your time using only it, usually templar for toss, vessel for terran and defiler for zerg. By making more units have targetable spells and more casters being viable having a good caster play will still be very hard, but it will be more hard in the sense of multitasking them, knowing wich caster you should use now instead of just the pure apm meter casters were before. | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
For instance, in SC PvZ you end up having 10 archons (basic), 10 zealots (basic), 6 dragoons (basic), 6 HT\'s (caster), 2 DA\'s (caster) 4 reavers in 2 shuttles (basic) which is a relation of ca. 3 to 1. In the middle game the relation is about the same. Now if they make spellcasters so viable that they are as useful as basic units the battles will be chaotic. With spells flying around everywhere on the screen you can\'t adapt to the situation because things happen too fast. Too many things happen too fast.You have no time to think or to react. If you can\'t think you can\'t arrange, you can\'t execute properly, you can\'t make the best out of tactics, maneuvers. There will be nothing but slaughter. A constant stream of disturbing mini-fights. PvZ is already known to be spell-heavy, now imagine it being spell-overloaded. Basic units are the fundamental, casters are not. This is why Blizzard will not make them too viable, at least not more than they are in SC. If they do they ruin the whole concept of SC. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On November 22 2007 01:42 ForAdun wrote: SC2 is not Spellforce. Blizzard won\'t make SC2 a game of spellcasters. They build the spells around the basics, not visa versa. This is why they won\'t make casters so viable that they can be used in any situation without the (big) support of basic units (except harassment of course). They wouldn\'t want the game to be smartcast-mania, too. I am sure. Well, I hope... For instance, in SC PvZ you end up having 10 archons (basic), 10 zealots (basic), 6 dragoons (basic), 6 HT\'s (caster), 2 DA\'s (caster) 4 reavers in 2 shuttles (basic) which is a relation of ca. 3 to 1. In the middle game the relation is about the same. Now if they make spellcasters so viable that they are as useful as basic units the battles will be chaotic. With spells flying around everywhere on the screen you can\'t adapt to the situation because things happen too fast. Too many things happen too fast.You have no time to think or to react. If you can\'t think you can\'t arrange, you can\'t execute properly, you can\'t make the best out of tactics, maneuvers. There will be nothing but slaughter. A constant stream of disturbing mini-fights. PvZ is already known to be spell-heavy, now imagine it being spell-overloaded. Basic units are the fundamental, casters are not. This is why Blizzard will not make them too viable, at least not more than they are in SC. If they do they ruin the whole concept of SC. But you have to consider the basic units with spells also, and i'd guess that most matchups will use both the casters for all the races in most cases wich would also make casting things harder. [/QUOTE]For instance, in SC PvZ you end up having 10 archons (basic), 10 zealots (basic), 6 dragoons (basic), 6 HT\'s (caster), 2 DA\'s (caster)[/QUOTE] Zealot basic, stalker caster, archon caster, templar caster. If you define casters as those who have powerfull targetable spells (Wich is exactly those who gets affected by smartcast) you'd have to include archons (Feedback) and stalkers (Blink every 6 seconds, wich have to be cloned if you dont want to bunch blink) Now if they make spellcasters so viable that they are as useful as basic units the battles will be chaotic. With spells flying around everywhere on the screen you can\'t adapt to the situation because things happen too fast. Too many things happen too fast.You have no time to think or to react. If you can\'t think you can\'t arrange, you can\'t execute properly, you can\'t make the best out of tactics, maneuvers. There will be nothing but slaughter. A constant stream of disturbing mini-fights. Not if your pro, and not if the casters are more like ghosts and less like templars. The ghost we saw will be a mainstay unit and a caster, so really Blizzard is toying with this ideea, same with giving templars an attack and having toss get a caster in t1.5.(Stasis orb) | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
But you should read again what you quoted about my example from SC PvZ; I wasn't talking about SC2. Then you may understand my arguments better. | ||
| ||
