|
On November 22 2007 02:07 ForAdun wrote:
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.
Yeah, the problem were that you werent talking about sc2 in a sc2 forum. Since more units have important targetable combat spells than before and if Blizzard does it right(Aka doesnt make half of them underpowered like in sc1) you will see a lot more need to cast spells in combat than before and especially casting spells with multiple unit types and a lot of different spells.
Apm/mousespeed wise this is still easier than before, but mind wise it should be comparable/harder.
|
in starcraft and in warcraft 3 there are spell caster killers. why do you think starcraft 2 will be any different? just because you add smart spell casting doesn't mean you have to do anything of the sort of weakening the spells or the casters. just keep on making spell caster killers. no big deal.
i think they already revealed one. remember how good zerglings were vs high templar? if left unprotected, the high templar found themselves in a prickly position. but with banelings, it is bye bye clumped up high templar group. so you see, they are implementing the spell caster killers, so don't worry about that.
|
I dont know if it was said before, i justed read the first page.
blizzard should do smarcasting and automining OPTIONAL.
this way casual gamers benefit from new technology and pro gaming would still be at a high level.
i think that kor pro leagus would definetly disable all kinds auf autostuff, to give the viewers more entertainment. i think so because entertainment was/is the key thing behind the whole esport succsess.
|
On November 22 2007 09:49 neustadt wrote:
I dont know if it was said before, i justed read the first page.
blizzard should do smarcasting and automining OPTIONAL.
this way casual gamers benefit from new technology and pro gaming would still be at a high level.
i think that kor pro leagus would definetly disable all kinds auf autostuff, to give the viewers more entertainment. i think so because entertainment was/is the key thing behind the whole esport succsess.
This is mostly true. I would just add that E-sports in SKorea is so successful because of the growing interest in internet-cafe's. SC:BW has been released just at the right moment though I'm sure it's own success came through the quality of the game itself. Entertainment comes all from the feeling. How does it feel like playing and watching SC:BW? The answer is the reason for it's success.
But how will it feel like playing/watching SC2? All these new features (MBS, "unlimited" unit-selection, smartcast and automining) will be some of the leading factors. If they - or only 2 or 3 of them - turn out to disturb the game feeling after the relase of the Beta I am sure Blizzard will have big trouble to change anything about it. But if they work on it right now - for instance if they work on different ladder systems now - they will have good chances to be able to change these features properly when time comes.
|
Can I also point out, that spellcasters generally make the game cluttered. Spells are generally big flashy effects on the screen. This is blizzards style and aint a problem if players are only utilising a few spellcaster units. If smartcasting = more spell use, then smartcasting also = more clutter.
|
On November 16 2007 14:07 Fen wrote:
Skill - Ok, well this is pretty straight forward. It takes more skill to effectively control your spellcasters if there is no smartcasting. Less skill means less areas for a player to prove that he is better than another. It lowers the skill gap which is bad for competition.
Yes, using a spellcaster is harder without smartcasting, but I don't think it's bad for competition. The question is: What do we want to focus on? Strategy, tactics, smart moves, reading your opponents etc. or struggling with the user interface?
I dont know if it was said before, i justed read the first page.
blizzard should do smarcasting and automining OPTIONAL.
this way casual gamers benefit from new technology and pro gaming would still be at a high level.
i think that kor pro leagus would definetly disable all kinds auf autostuff, to give the viewers more entertainment. i think so because entertainment was/is the key thing behind the whole esport succsess.
One thing that they SHOULD NOT do is make it optional. It's not just casual gamers who wants smartcasting, it competitive gamers too (Like me and a whole lot more). This would only split the SC2 players into two camps and that's BAD.
Any it doesn't necessarily give viewers more entertainment. What's entertaining is that they are good, not that they can cast spells without smartcasting.
Also, some people bring up the argument that it will not be as exciting when the pros do micro stuff, if the interface is more user friendly. The way I see it, even if that were true (which I'm not sure it is), I would rather have a good game that I can play rather than be a little more excited when I watch the pros play. (After all, you all play more than you watch vods, don't you?)
|
Yep plenty of competitive gamers themselves want smartcasting. I think we have to focus less on making something "impressive" and more so on making something viable. As it stands now the majority of SC casters are wasted and majority of spells are useless. And really Boxer ghost lock down was impressive for its time but not so much in this day and age.
|
Why does everyone say 'struggling with the user interface' when there's clearly PLENTY of gamers who have no problem doing it?
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 28 2007 22:42 Hawk wrote:
Why does everyone say 'struggling with the user interface' when there's clearly PLENTY of gamers who have no problem doing it? Plenty? It's a pretty small % who can clone and micro spells effectively and they do so with huge amounts of practice. I'd say most people (non pros) who use storm/swarm well do it with magic boxes rather than cloning, and I don't think magic box casting is any more difficult than smartcasting except that you're faced with frustration when your units are blocked/delayed in the heat of battle.
No doubt Boxer's lockdown cloning was impressive, but the entire method is over the top in difficulty and inefficient, and even he was restricted by it since there's no way he ever could've pulled it off without having his ghosts start so far away.
|
On November 28 2007 23:03 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2007 22:42 Hawk wrote:
Why does everyone say 'struggling with the user interface' when there's clearly PLENTY of gamers who have no problem doing it? Plenty? It's a pretty small % who can clone and micro spells effectively and they do so with huge amounts of practice. I'd say most people (non pros) who use storm/swarm well do it with magic boxes rather than cloning, and I don't think magic box casting is any more difficult than smartcasting except that you're faced with frustration when your units are blocked/delayed in the heat of battle. No doubt Boxer's lockdown cloning was impressive, but the entire method is over the top in difficulty and inefficient, and even he was restricted by it since there's no way he ever could've pulled it off without having his ghosts start so far away.
The magic box is a hype... nobody actually uses it in game because it's too luck-dependent. You can't use it in battle because things happen too fast. One little inaccuracy and you waste tons of energy. You also have to prepare the magic box every single time which is impossible. No need to argue, just test it in games and you'll see. The argument with the magic box doesn't work.
Many (and I mean many) people can use storm and swarm properly, the rest who can't is simply too lazy, that's the whole story. Spells in SC are easy to use, they only become hard to use when you have to use them several times in a row like Boxer's lockdown on BC's.
Cloning is also not the number one method, only in some cases e.g. when you have 8 science vessels and enough time which is not usual. In a standard situation people use their APM and some accuracy for storm/swarm/irradiate etc.
Without all that effort SC would be a joke for progamers. Anyone with enough knowledge about strategy could be the next runner-up and with some luck he would stay there for a while. This isn't possible in SC and it shouldn't be possible in SC2 because: the more skill you need to become the best the more fame you get, because people will know that you are really the best. Do you think it should be easier?
Talking about Boxer's lockdown, there was little space between his ghosts and the BC's, watch the vod. He had about 4-5 seconds for the whole thing after his ghosts started walking which is impressive. You really shouldn't take this too easy, it's one of the most respected moves in the whole SC history.
When you compared the magic box to smartcast I was about to say that you don't know anything about SC. I don't say that because I don't know you, I just want to ask you: how much SC did you play? I played this game for 6 years now.
|
United States22883 Posts
You have far more experience than I do, but I've pulled off mb swarms after the battle begins (first swarms done manually.) I think you're drastically overplaying the importance of spell micro in SC though. Most games aren't decided by who can most expertly cast a spell. A player with good casts doesn't automatically lose against someone with godly casts.
I think smartcasting's purpose is to replace cloning more than anything else. If you're talking about the non-cloning situations, then I think there's still an advantage to doing it the manual way and pros will still use it. Like you said, formations and timing play a big role so it's still more beneficial to select the closest unit and do it yourself, instead of rely on smartcasting and possibly end up with the templar/vessel furthest away trying to cast. As long as smartcasting doesn't operate by proximity, I think there'd still be a need for manual casting in competitive play.
|
On November 29 2007 00:05 Jibba wrote:
You have far more experience than I do, but I've pulled off mb swarms after the battle begins (first swarms done manually.) I think you're drastically overplaying the importance of spell micro in SC though. Most games aren't decided by who can most expertly cast a spell. A player with good casts doesn't automatically lose against someone with godly casts.
I think smartcasting's purpose is to replace cloning more than anything else. If you're talking about the non-cloning situations, then I think there's still an advantage to doing it the manual way and pros will still use it. Like you said, formations and timing play a big role so it's still more beneficial to select the closest unit and do it yourself, instead of rely on smartcasting and possibly end up with the templar/vessel furthest away trying to cast. As long as smartcasting doesn't operate by proximity, I think there'd still be a need for manual casting in competitive play.
I never said games are decided by who has the better control. Never. I say games are strongly influenced; which is reason enough to keep it a special task in the game - a task that becomes harder the more casters players use. One shouldn't be rewarded for overproducing caster units if he can't control them properly without smartcast, that's my opinion.
I think you see my arguments too drastically. The arguments I give are only parts of the whole thing, put them all together and you have the picture called competitive SC, at least how I see it. Since I know rather well how competitive SC works I also have some knowledge about how SC2 can stay competitive - and how it can't. I'm following the basics (being able to do this or that is probably the most important basic) of competitive SC. This is the fundamental for my reasoning.
Yes smartcast will also replace cloning, and as we know from WC3 smartcast will totally ruin manual casting. There will be nothing but smartcast because it indeed is revolutional. I've never said I find smartcast bad as a whole, it is definitely an improvement for some games, games that are not as good as SC. When it comes to SC2 which shall be known as a competitive game then... you know what I'm going to say.
In another topic I said I can live with smartcast if MBS and the high unit-selection-cap will be left out of SC2 so my arguing against smartcast is based on my overall view of the current SC2. And not only my view.
What people said about how SC2 plays was very clear: it is too easy. (The rest of them only said how amazing the game is and that the graphics are great, they didn't even recognize the new features which is rather funny. To me this proves that they are not interested in the game mechanics, they are probably waiting for WoW in space and not for the next Starcraft.)
Too easy means too easy. A message that has yet been officially ignored by Blizzard. This worries me.
|
United States22883 Posts
True, but you said:
Without all that effort SC would be a joke for progamers. Anyone with enough knowledge about strategy could be the next runner-up and with some luck he would stay there for a while.
To me, it seems like the exact opposite. With enough practice, there plenty of mechanically sound pros (practice partners, B team and such) who are capable of any maneuver and in most cases, very good execution (although still below the level of top grade pros.) The main thing they lack is deep strategic understanding, which is why we see so many clone terrans. I think that effort part is actually easier for progamers and the strategic knowledge is what seperates the best from the rest.
I'm curious how smartcasting has ruined manual casting in WC3, since I've only watched half a dozen matches. I still think the positioning/timing argument is a legitimate reason for continuing to cast manually.
I think most people who said SC2 was too easy, were complaining about MBS more than anything else. I'm completely against MBS and leaning against the huge unit selection cap.
|
On November 29 2007 02:53 Jibba wrote:
To me, it seems like the exact opposite. With enough practice, there plenty of mechanically sound pros (practice partners, B team and such) who are capable of any maneuver and in most cases, very good execution (although still below the level of top grade pros.) The main thing they lack is deep strategic understanding, which is why we see so many clone terrans. I think that effort part is actually easier for progamers and the strategic knowledge is what seperates the best from the rest.
I bet many of those "clone terrans" would rape the living shit out of you in terms of strategic understanding. Just because they play a very solid mechanical and somewhat conservative style doesn't mean they don't know what they are doing.
And this "deep strategic understanding" crap is overrated. You talk about like its some mystical thing that some people are born with and others aren't. Strategy in games is a mixture of preparation, experience with game timing and situations, on the fly intuition and tactics, and the confidence to execute it. If you talking about the strategic genius of the great commanders in actual warfare, that is something else entirely different, and is not possible to simulate in a game. That kind of strategy is based upon the ability to gauge unknowns and unmeasurables. Competitive RTS games by their nature are exhaustively tested, calculated, with the conditions well known.
Contrary to what you say, strategy can be just as easily taught as mechanics. That was what the MBC game coach said in an interview, that July hadn't been playing strategically for 2 years when he won his OSLs. In fact, he says he looks for mechanical ability rather than strategy when looking for new players. And look at that MBC team - everyone on that roster has their own distinctive style, and no one can accuse their of being "clone" players.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 29 2007 03:07 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2007 02:53 Jibba wrote:
To me, it seems like the exact opposite. With enough practice, there plenty of mechanically sound pros (practice partners, B team and such) who are capable of any maneuver and in most cases, very good execution (although still below the level of top grade pros.) The main thing they lack is deep strategic understanding, which is why we see so many clone terrans. I think that effort part is actually easier for progamers and the strategic knowledge is what seperates the best from the rest.
I bet many of those "clone terrans" would rape the living shit out of you in terms of strategic understanding. Just because they play a very solid mechanical and somewhat conservative style doesn't mean they don't know what they are doing. And this "deep strategic understanding" crap is overrated. You talk about like its some mystical thing that some people are born with and others aren't. Strategy in games is a mixture of preparation, experience with game timing and situations, on the fly intuition and tactics, and the confidence to execute it. If you talking about the strategic genius of the great commanders in actual warfare, that is something else entirely different, and is not possible to simulate in a game. That kind of strategy is based upon the ability to gauge unknowns and unmeasurables. Competitive RTS games by their nature are exhaustively tested, calculated, with the conditions well known. Contrary to what you say, strategy can be just as easily taught as mechanics. That was what the MBC game coach said in an interview, that July hadn't been playing strategically for 2 years when he won his OSLs. In fact, he says he looks for mechanical ability rather than strategy when looking for new players. And look at that MBC team - everyone on that roster has their own distinctive style, and no one can accuse their of being "clone" players. I'm pretty sure they'd rape the living shit out of everyone here strategically, but that's irrelevant. I was simply saying that it's off base to say manual casting skill is the deciding factor between pros (when lots of pros have the ability, but they lack in other areas) and it's incorrect to assume smartcasting simplifies the game so much that "Anyone with enough knowledge about strategy could be the next runner-up and with some luck he would stay there for a while."
"Strategy in games is a mixture of preparation, experience with game timing and situations, on the fly intuition and tactics, and the confidence to execute it." That's exactly what I mean. Timing, intuition, tactics, etc. are what separates the best pros from regular pros. Casting skill is included in that, but it's a fraction.
|
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.
No, because no one will be impressed when a progamer clones 12 spells really fast if 50 APM noobs can do it with smartcasting turned on. Pros working miracles with the same UI as the common player seem impressive. Progamers wrestling with a crappy UI to do what a noob does when smartcasting is turned on won't make a spectator stare, eyes wide, unable to believe that the micro he is witnessing could be accomplished by human hands.
Progaming isn't for progamers, it's for spectators. If you can't make progamming interesting for an average player to watch, why bother balancing it for progamers at all?
|
Why bother bringing up lockdowns or what have you. I mean it's not even use and you know why? Cause of the damn UI thats why! Fuck I guess we can keep the UI shitty if it makes us go wow one game out of every thousand. There will always be things that make us go wow and gamers pro or otherwise will find clever things to do in game that require alot of hand dexterity. Smartcasting will not ruin that.
|
On November 29 2007 03:32 Jibba wrote:
"Strategy in games is a mixture of preparation, experience with game timing and situations, on the fly intuition and tactics, and the confidence to execute it." That's exactly what I mean. Timing, intuition, tactics, etc. are what separates the best pros from regular pros. Casting skill is included in that, but it's a fraction.
Yes, and by that definition, you will see that strategy isn't really that clear cut from execution and mechanics, but rather very interrelated and sometimes takes the same skill sets. Its not these earth-breaking builds which define pros, but rather incrementally better decision making and execution in pressure packed situations. Its not that there is an army of clones out there with the same mechanical ability but lacking the strategical spark to make them pro. A player might be hindered from being pro as much by his mechanics as his strategy. Hence smartcasting isn't going to suddenly help the top professional players compared to their lesser counterparts which match them in mechanics but not in strategy. Its simply going to decrease the skill gap overall as there is less to execute and less incremental decisions to make.
|
On November 29 2007 04:53 YinYang69 wrote:
Why bother bringing up lockdowns or what have you. I mean it's not even use and you know why? Cause of the damn UI thats why! Fuck I guess we can keep the UI shitty if it makes us go wow one game out of every thousand. There will always be things that make us go wow and gamers pro or otherwise will find clever things to do in game that require alot of hand dexterity. Smartcasting will not ruin that.
Come on, smartcast will make it much easier to use caster units properly so it will automatically ruin the wow-effect in many scenarios. This is logic.
|
On November 29 2007 04:53 YinYang69 wrote:
Why bother bringing up lockdowns or what have you. I mean it's not even use and you know why? Cause of the damn UI thats why! Fuck I guess we can keep the UI shitty if it makes us go wow one game out of every thousand. There will always be things that make us go wow and gamers pro or otherwise will find clever things to do in game that require alot of hand dexterity. Smartcasting will not ruin that.
Ghosts aren't used because the unit as a whole sucks, not because it's hard to hit what you want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
