|
On January 31 2008 06:48 teapot wrote:
Oh, that's right. There is already automation in the game.
When an enemy unit comes within range of a marine he AUTOMATICALLY opens fire.
When a marine is attacked by a unit beyond his attack range he will AUTOMATICALLY run away.
When a medic has a injured unit in her range she will AUTOMATICALLY heals it.
We could take these out, but it'd ruin the fucking game.
Imagine SC2 as a car. The enhancements being made to the UI are more like power steering than automatic transmission.
Power steering is a good thing, it gives you MORE CONTROL.
Automatic transmission is a bad thing, it takes decisions away from you giving you LESS CONTROL.
The UI improvements in SC2 are enhancing decisions that you already make. Anyone who has driven a car with power steering does not want to go without it. But lots of people, including myself can't stand the idea of someone who drives an automatic, learn to drive properly morons! xD
At first I was just going to be an asshole, but you actually finished with a great point.
More control is definitely a good thing. I guess it is flawed logic to say that automation itself is the problem, but rather having an action taken away from the user is the problem. Although I could make that same argument for units automatically attacking, it makes sense for a unit to fire on enemy units in self defense without a command being issued to do so.
I think the biggest point is that there are things that make sense to be done automatically, and then there are things that don't.
It makes sense for a medic to use a 1 energy spell to heal, as it's not a big heal. It's not like a casted spell in WoW that can heal the majority of a target's health points; it's a small, insignificant spell that while useful, isn't something that is as important as, say, psionic storm.
If "bigger" spells like storm and maelstrom were automatically casted, that wouldn't make sense.
Is this more clear? :/
|
I'm most concerned about MBS + Automine. 0p (or 0s or 0sd) shouldn't take care of all of your economy for you.
As for the Zerg, there's always the possiblity of a drone rally button and a unit rally button. I have a major issue with this though. At a certain point, adding UI options like this complicates things. It makes the game easier for pros and harder for noobs (since there are more UI features). Surely, fewer options that accomplish more = a better UI
|
On January 31 2008 08:31 rpf wrote:
At first I was just going to be an asshole, but you actually finished with a great point.
More control is definitely a good thing. I guess it is flawed logic to say that automation itself is the problem, but rather having an action taken away from the user is the problem. Although I could make that same argument for units automatically attacking, it makes sense for a unit to fire on enemy units in self defense without a command being issued to do so.
I think the biggest point is that there are things that make sense to be done automatically, and then there are things that don't.
It makes sense for a medic to use a 1 energy spell to heal, as it's not a big heal. It's not like a casted spell in WoW that can heal the majority of a target's health points; it's a small, insignificant spell that while useful, isn't something that is as important as, say, psionic storm.
If "bigger" spells like storm and maelstrom were automatically casted, that wouldn't make sense.
Is this more clear? :/
The problem I have with this line of reasoning is this. When WOULDN'T you want an SCV to come out and start mining?
|
When you wanna use it to scout? or build? or do the cha cha?
|
I spend most of my time doing the cha cha. Maybe that's why I lose -_-
In any case, sending it to scout is as simple as setting the rally point off in the black, to build somewhere in your base. If you set the rally point on the minerals, it's pretty clear you want it to come out and mine.
I'm not saying I support auto-mine fully, merely that logically, I think that as far as the player making a choice, putting the rally point on minerals is tantamount to making the choice you want the worker to mine
|
Yeah I agree with Stan that it doesn't take anyway any control from the gamer, but it does make the game easier to play. They could balance this by making Micro more APM intensive otherwise they are just noobifying the game.
They need to add loads of "Micro Tricks" so that faster units can beat bigger slower ones etc... if sick micro is used. However I don't think they will manage that and the game will probably suck.
Then it just turns into build vs build or knowledge vs knowledge (a bit like WC).
|
Yes it does slick. You should have to control your shit at all times. There are a lot of pros who cannot handle micro/macroing their scvs and if you add this feature as soooooo many people have said before good luck seeing sick comebacks.
|
On January 31 2008 09:59 Klive5ive wrote:
Yeah I agree with Stan that it doesn't take anyway any control from the gamer, but it does make the game easier to play. They could balance this by making Micro more APM intensive otherwise they are just noobifying the game.
They need to add loads of "Micro Tricks" so that faster units can beat bigger slower ones etc... if sick micro is used. However I don't think they will manage that and the game will probably suck.
Then it just turns into build vs build or knowledge vs knowledge (a bit like WC).
ffs this isn't wc
|
On January 31 2008 09:59 Klive5ive wrote:
They could balance this by making Micro more APM intensive otherwise they are just noobifying the game.
The problem I see here is that micro is already very APM intensive. Honestly, someone who has a higher APM is going to win a micro war over someone with a lower APM (assuming equal strategic skill). Why should we now suddenly remove this advantage from macro?
Also, by adding more micro tasks to compensate for the reduced macro. Then the game will fluctuate in APM requriements. In starcraft, you pretty much wanna use your max APM the entire game. In starcraft 2, your max APM will only be required when in fights. This will lead to people spamming for large portions of the game just to keep their APM up for the fights. And will make the downtime when your not fighting much more boring. You should always be pushed to the limits all the time.
|
On January 31 2008 18:51 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2008 09:59 Klive5ive wrote:
They could balance this by making Micro more APM intensive otherwise they are just noobifying the game. Why should we now suddenly remove this advantage from macro?
The issue isn´t Micro vs. Micro and Macro vs. Macro but Micro vs. Macro.
Say you could decide to micro a unit to save it OR Macro your base to build a additional unit of that type. Macro is always better here since there is no risk, you always "keep" the unit on the production way but by microing you risk loosing the unit anyway.
Macroing always gives you the new unit AND there is a chance that you can rescue the original unit anyway (dumb luck, enemy mistake, etc...).
The situation is never THAT easy but it leads to a focus on Macroing. It also burdens especially Micro intensive units, makes them indirectly unpopular (Queens for example).
|
What are the gold minerals?
example on the bottom right of DT page on the official site.
|
On January 04 2008 14:21 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Pros:
- Gives players more time to focus on battle and thus being able to control bigger armies which would be good for tv broadcasts and make the game more fun to play.
- Less focus on multitasking and more focus on the managing the important aspects of your base such as choosing which buildings to build, etc.
- Makes game flow better, no attention losses on important battles, etc, to have to go back to base and worry about workers, makes bases "cleaner" will less random workers lying around.
So what do you guys think?
I think auto-mining allows chinks to better excel at the game because the majority of them like WCIII.
|
On February 06 2008 14:28 500lbsMicro wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2008 14:21 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Pros:
- Gives players more time to focus on battle and thus being able to control bigger armies which would be good for tv broadcasts and make the game more fun to play.
- Less focus on multitasking and more focus on the managing the important aspects of your base such as choosing which buildings to build, etc.
- Makes game flow better, no attention losses on important battles, etc, to have to go back to base and worry about workers, makes bases "cleaner" will less random workers lying around.
So what do you guys think? I think auto-mining allows chinks to better excel at the game because the majority of them like WCIII.
I hope you get banned and never come back.
dacthehork:
The gold minerals double the amount of minerals the worker returns. At least if they didn't change it in the meantime.
In SC1, it would mean you'd get 16 minerals per golden mineral block. Not sure if the numbers are the same in SC2.
|
On February 06 2008 14:28 500lbsMicro wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2008 14:21 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Pros:
- Gives players more time to focus on battle and thus being able to control bigger armies which would be good for tv broadcasts and make the game more fun to play.
- Less focus on multitasking and more focus on the managing the important aspects of your base such as choosing which buildings to build, etc.
- Makes game flow better, no attention losses on important battles, etc, to have to go back to base and worry about workers, makes bases "cleaner" will less random workers lying around.
So what do you guys think? I think auto-mining allows chinks to better excel at the game because the majority of them like WCIII.
|
People are becoming a little too narrow-minded when considering possibilities for games like Starcraft II. If one becomes too nit-picky about making the sequel like the original, we will simply end up with a knock-off with better graphics and a few minor changes. Nobody wants this; what they want is a full-fledged RTS of similar caliber with uniqueness, room for nearly infinite strategy, perfect balance, and a huge requirement of skill.
Starcraft II can have these qualities while not being exactly the same in all aspects. In Starcraft original, manually clicking your drones/SCVs/probes onto mineral patches is an important aspect of the game, because without it you will have no resources. It is not, however, fundamental to the concept of "macro," which requires that you claim an area for resources, adequately protect it from the enemy, and subsequently build up your unit production output with technology resource to compensate and hopefully overpower your enemy.
The narrow-mindedness stems from the problem where people look at Starcraft I and say "what would the game be like without having to click drones to mineral patches?" Obviously, we would be left with situations where one wouldn't have to frantically click back to the home base and select drones, flip-flopping back and forth between home and abroad where their army lies. But what if some other feature of the game required similar attention, a feature we aren't yet aware? What if SC2 allows for easier transportation of units, and you had to defend at home much more often? What if some building required a manual recharge to set an effect upon some units? What if armies required more spreading and simultaneous attacks, so we'd have to split our attention just as much anyway?
I obviously can't think of everything new that would go into the game. You can continue arguing for or against automining, but please remember that one small element that made Starcraft I a great game isn't a requirement of Starcraft II per se, and it might actually hold back the possibility of other new and exciting features.
|
dacthehork:
The gold minerals double the amount of minerals the worker returns. At least if they didn't change it in the meantime.
In SC1, it would mean you'd get 16 minerals per golden mineral block. Not sure if the numbers are the same in SC2.
It's just 12 minerals.
|
On February 06 2008 16:15 Saline wrote:
People are becoming a little too narrow-minded when considering possibilities for games like Starcraft II. If one becomes too nit-picky about making the sequel like the original, we will simply end up with a knock-off with better graphics and a few minor changes. Nobody wants this; what they want is a full-fledged RTS of similar caliber with uniqueness, room for nearly infinite strategy, perfect balance, and a huge requirement of skill.
Starcraft II can have these qualities while not being exactly the same in all aspects. In Starcraft original, manually clicking your drones/SCVs/probes onto mineral patches is an important aspect of the game, because without it you will have no resources. It is not, however, fundamental to the concept of "macro," which requires that you claim an area for resources, adequately protect it from the enemy, and subsequently build up your unit production output with technology resource to compensate and hopefully overpower your enemy.
The narrow-mindedness stems from the problem where people look at Starcraft I and say "what would the game be like without having to click drones to mineral patches?" Obviously, we would be left with situations where one wouldn't have to frantically click back to the home base and select drones, flip-flopping back and forth between home and abroad where their army lies. But what if some other feature of the game required similar attention, a feature we aren't yet aware? What if SC2 allows for easier transportation of units, and you had to defend at home much more often? What if some building required a manual recharge to set an effect upon some units? What if armies required more spreading and simultaneous attacks, so we'd have to split our attention just as much anyway?
I obviously can't think of everything new that would go into the game. You can continue arguing for or against automining, but please remember that one small element that made Starcraft I a great game isn't a requirement of Starcraft II per se, and it might actually hold back the possibility of other new and exciting features.
Sounds great, you starry-eyed hippy.
I went through much the same thought process. Then I started thinking, "what exactly could we do to make it interesting"
I drew a big blank
What's your suggestion to make it interesting? Merely saying it should be something more interesting isn't very helpful. If you've got an idea, that's good!
|
How about making peons assignable to buildings? Currently all they do is harvest and build buildings. Why not let them enter buildings to increase productionspeed in them? Just a random idea.
|
How about enabling auto-mine, but disabling wandering. So one worker would try to mine the patch you sent it to until that patch is mined out, and then continue with the next. So if you send all your workers to one patch, your mining will be very slow.
Ok, thats a ridiculous idea, but thats as far as I get in finding other tasks to do while the units are doing your job.
|
Starry-eyed hippy? Please. You're implying that because you and I, who have presumably never designed a game before, can't think of new features for a game, that we should scrap hopes for creativity?
I wasn't promoting new ideas in my post, and I thought I made that clear. My point was to tell people to try to break out of their 'original Starcraft' shell and picture new aspects of the game which might replace manual resource mining, and realize that losing a feature of the original (in this case, automining) isn't necessarily the end of the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
