|
On March 24 2008 12:02 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
Now that I've read GeneralStan's post on the whole (i only skimmed through it before), I think that his proposed option of not allowing you to hotkey multiple buildings is actually really good.
The only disadvantage would be that it's inconsistent with how units are handled, but the advantages are:
- MBS for setting the rally point works
- MBS for microing defensive structures works
- MBS for the Protoss warpgate/phase prism mechanic works
- MBS in general works too, but because you can't hotkey the group you have to switch to your base (important point) and then double click (or ctrl+click) on a building to select them all (this is less tedious than always having to click on each) and then pump one unit type
- If you want a unit mix, you have to use manual SBS of course (with the original MBS mechanic, you'd have to do the same. No disadvantage here)
- It forces you to split your attention (from army to base and back)
Actually, that's a surprisingly simple solution to all potential problems I haven't quite noticed before. Maybe I should read the posts more thoroughly *g*
Everything is how it should be, and you're forced to switch to your base.
It would also be very easy to implement for Blizzard, and doesn't do radical changes.
I could live with that...
I think this option has been mentioned before but I haven't quite realized how suitable it is. It's much better suited to SC2 than adding the old SBS would be, yet it preserves the (maybe) important split of attention. All that in a simple way.
either have MBS or don't have MBS this option is just horrible imo
|
Great post 1esu.
"- ALL grouped buildings must be unhotkeyable, not just the unit-producing ones, for the alteration to be self-consistent."
True
"- A way of selecting buildings and not units needs to be implemented; a good idea from battle.net (ha!) is to have drag-select to the right select units, and drag-select to the left select buildings."
I find this unintuitive. I think maybenexttime's idea of using CTRL to get only buildings is better.
"- It makes MBS totally unusable once any flexibility within a single building type is desired, thus requiring the player to use SBS past the low skill levels. If SC2 meets the goal we discussed earlier of every MU using the same number of units as PvZ, then there's almost no reason to have MBS anymore."
4z5d6t7o8r0p ftw? Every unit can be fit in the current number of hotkeys, making MBS very useful indeed.
"- It limits the effectiveness of building unit-producing buildings at expansions that MBS makes possible, which is a great strategic addition to SC2."
I don't think pros would have production facilities at expansions much in any case, since it means when you lose an expansion, you've lost a part of your production as well as economy.
"- It potentially suffers from the same problem that GS brought up for "messy" MBS: if there is only one unit per building type necessary for a specific MU, the player can just go to their base, ctrl-click-z-ctrl-click-z-ctrl-click-z (since customizable hotkeys allow the player to set each unit's hotkey to z), and go back. If the player builds their buildings in the same place every time, the break in attention caused by going back to one's base becomes insignificant at higher levels of skill. Even with multiple units for one building type, the player could just build groups of that building far enough apart so that they can ctrl-click and just select one individual group."
I disagree. The mere fact of returning to base is enough to maintain the rythmic feel of unit production we enjoy.
|
On March 25 2008 03:10 GeneralStan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2008 02:59 teamsolid wrote:
It's called a compromise. Non-hotkey buildings isn't a terrible idea IMO, but I'm sure there has to be better ways of adding multitasking back in. I agree Now share your ideas. Until I see some of these skillful macro replacement alternative spelled, I have to assume they don't exist. That's the big problem. Everybody thinks it would be a nifty idea, but nobody knows how to reinsert macro without making it a gimmick
There are loads of ideas. Most of them increase the importance of Macro in the first place (I´d like that but think it´s unlikely to happen). It doesn´t have to be a completely new mechanic in the first place - just make the game another level faster (they are experimenting with that).
One aspect I´d like to see increased would be the importance of map control. Non-expansions that are strategically important like Observatories, chokes... etc. (I think Overlords got Creepdrop just for that-so they don´t have to build a hatchery at every place they want static defenses)
Other ideas include the increasing of economic depht, another resource for example. Or actuall logistics and multi building assembly lines.
The main problem with that is that more Macro would decrease the relative value of Micro. Think about it, your main complaint about MBS is the reverse.
Edit:
On March 25 2008 04:03 GeneralStan wrote:
"- It limits the effectiveness of building unit-producing buildings at expansions that MBS makes possible, which is a great strategic addition to SC2."
I don't think pros would have production facilities at expansions much in any case, since it means when you lose an expansion, you've lost a part of your production as well as economy.
That would be something I´d like to see more of. Blizzard really should increase the importance of expansions/strategic positions. If loosing them became a bigger setback players would build production buildings there simply for easier defense. That woud also make mobility more important.
|
I think MBS will have very little effect to macro at highest level and quite big effect on mid/low levels. Top class progamers will do anything to gain edge over opponent which will make grouping production buildings not as effecting as clicking and ordering the exact amount of each type of units that you need at that point. Simply because their speed is insane it will be faster to click 4 gateways for zeals and 2 gateways for goons and later, due to circumstances, click 3 goons 3 zeals rather than hotkeying 4 gateways for zeals and 2 gateways for goons and clicking mass production constantly thus having worse zeal:goon ratio than you wanted to (rehotkeying for new ratio would take longer). Single clicking will be even faster when you need more types of units ordered with ratio that you want at that point in time (which should be true in Starcraft 2 since all units will be valuable). Moreover, you might need unit ratio changed due to resources. This ratio fluctuation should be happening frequently and constantly thus making MBS of production buildings not so effective when you want to get perfect unit combination.
Im just speculating here and hoping for this to be true which would make newbies, pros and Blizzard happy (i might be completely wrong tho).
|
This is true to a certain degree. A likewise comparison can be made with autocasting in WC3. Many people thought that it noobified the game when it reality it simply had no effect on the competitive scene except to make it easier for noobs to play. Because at the highest levels of competitive play, pros simply had to turn off autocasting because they could more effectively manual cast then autocasting. A major part of that was because casters had multiple spells to cast and so if the caster just autospammed the default spell it would quickly deplete the mana and leave no room to cast the other more powerful spells.
So I think that there is a similar relationship with MBS in that pros will end up more closely using SBS to efficienly produce the desired units with the given resources.
However, I think there is a plateau point with MBS in that it takes away a facet of the game in which pro gamers differentiate themselves (though I think this is tiny imo). I think the best is to split the ladder into hardcore (classic SC interface) vs. normal ladder. I think also that you don't have to worry about splitting the community at all.
I'm going to make a prediction that SC2 will have at least 100,000 people playing it online simultaneously. I'll say that maybe 40-50% will be playing custom games, while the other 50-60% will be playing ladder. So thats about 50-60,000 people playing ladder. If we split the ladder up into desired modes, hardcore (classic UI) vs. normal.. then thats a split of 25-30,000 people per mode. Thats A LOT of players to play still. I would estimate, however, that more people will play normal ladder than hardcore, but thats still many thousands if not 10s of thousands of people playing hardcore.
The downside is that it would require a larger (or splitted) balancing team to balance the game through patching, seperate changes to each mode.
|
On March 25 2008 06:04 yangstuh wrote:
This is true to a certain degree. A likewise comparison can be made with autocasting in WC3. Many people thought that it noobified the game when it reality it simply had no effect on the competitive scene except to make it easier for noobs to play. Because at the highest levels of competitive play, pros simply had to turn off autocasting because they could more effectively manual cast then autocasting. A major part of that was because casters had multiple spells to cast and so if the caster just autospammed the default spell it would quickly deplete the mana and leave no room to cast the other more powerful spells.
So I think that there is a similar relationship with MBS in that pros will end up more closely using SBS to efficienly produce the desired units with the given resources.
However, I think there is a plateau point with MBS in that it takes away a facet of the game in which pro gamers differentiate themselves (though I think this is tiny imo). I think the best is to split the ladder into hardcore (classic SC interface) vs. normal ladder. I think also that you don't have to worry about splitting the community at all.
No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no.
The number of noes I put is the about thenumber of times that a split ladder has ALREADY BEEN REJECTED.
On March 22 2008 01:07 Kennigit wrote:
Rules:
1. Educate yourself. If you don't know something, find out. Search, read our articles or find out otherwise. Many of our members are knowledgeable, and if they make a point you don't understand, admit your lack of said knowledge and fix it.
4. Be smart. Think about your own post, check if it has been said before. When replying to someone else's post - make sure you know what his/hers post is about, that you understand it, and that your disagreement, agreement or addition is properly worded and shows your opinion clearly.
Educate yourself. Please
Jusciax, I JUST countered your argument. Before you made it. How about that?
Namely, perfect micro is way way better than perfect unit choice, and perfect macro can be married with perfect micro to make a slightly suboptimal unit choice far better than having to return to base to macro.
And, given the number of units that Blizzard is giving to each race, using MBS to create an optimal unit mix won't be difficult
4z5d6t7o8r0p
Every unit you need in P v Z.
There is no way to force a varied unit choice on the player, and in all likely hood the game won't require more changes to unit composition than Brood War.
|
I edited my post, but I'll say it again..
I'm going to make a prediction that SC2 will have at least 100,000 people playing it online simultaneously. I'll say that maybe 40-50% will be playing custom games, while the other 50-60% will be playing ladder. So thats about 50-60,000 people playing ladder. If we split the ladder up into desired modes, hardcore (classic UI) vs. normal.. then thats a split of 25-30,000 people per mode. Thats A LOT of players to play still. I would estimate, however, that more people will play normal ladder than hardcore, but thats still many thousands if not 10s of thousands of people playing hardcore.
The downside is that it would require a larger (or splitted) balancing team to balance the game through patching, seperate changes to each mode.
|
more buckets = bad
actually the idea of making the reactor something more like the warpgate (ie. a unit comes out instantly and then theres a cooldown) sounds like it might work.
Terran player has 1 reactor, and 4 rax. Marine comes out instantly, lift rax, land new rax, instant marine, repeat. Of course the cooldown for the reactor would have to be held on each individual building.
Or is that just too much work?
What about making the supply buildings give half as much supply and cost half as much, this way you return to your base twice as often to build supply buildings. If it takes up too much space you can give each supply building (and overlord) a part 1 and a part 2. You build the part 1, and then you have to return to the building and "upgrade" to part 2.
just brainstorming over here, imo forced macro actions like these are lame, i'm down with having MBS but being able to hotkey only 1 building.
|
Actually, I was thinking a bit more about how well an unhotkeyable MBS system could work, similar to previous posts. I propose the following UI system:
-Allow multiple buildings to be selected at the same time only by double-click or ctrl-click on a single building (i.e. select all visible buildings) OR by shift clicking multiple buildings to add to your selection.
-No drag selection for buildings (make them distinct from units, afaik not in current build anyways).
-Allow hotkey of max one building at a time (hotkey ability could also be entirely removed to preserve the notion that buildings are distinct from units and to make the UI more uniform rather than an arbitrary limit of one hotkey)
I'm going to just list a few pros and cons of the UI's that have been brought up so far.
MBS
PROS:
- More user-friendly; better suited to both new and casual players; shorter learning curve
- The UI standard in RTS today; won't feel outdated
- Removes the "repetitive clicking as primary skill" criticism of the UI from most uninformed players
- Makes rally points and warp gate usage much more practical
CONS:
- Reduces multitasking requirement
- Shifts the macro-micro balance away from the macro side of the scale (could also be a pro depending on point of view)
- Amplifies the effect of auto-mining by allowing all nexus to be selected together (could also be a pro depending on point of view)
MBS (hotkey max 1 building at a time)
PROS:
- Retains multitasking requirement
- Will not necessarily feel out of place for new or casual players, because vast majority of players people who are new to RTS do not use hotkeys for buildings. (i.e. Dustin Browder's interview of how he selects all of his buildings each time he had to build)
- Inflexible system for producing a specific mix of desired units from a single building type once you have more than 5 production buildings --> must click individually when fine-tuning is required
- Similar to SC for first ~8 mins of game (while # of hotkeys are still sufficient for unit production buildings)
- Will never allow you to select more than one nexus at a time --> no amplification of auto-mining
- Makes rally points and warp gate usage much more practical
- Invalidates the "repetitive clicking as primary skill" criticism of the UI from most uninformed players
CONS:
- UI may feel unintuitive (However, the people who would complain about it, would actually dislike SBS far more, even if it is more intuitive).
IMO, unhotkeyable MBS is a great compromise of the UI for both the casual and the competitive scene. It retains the multitasking (forcing you to return to your base), while removing the "cloning" of the repeated building clicks that is the primary criticism of SBS. It isn't necessarily that unintuitive if you just think of buildings as different entities from units.
|
On March 25 2008 17:29 teamsolid wrote:
CONS:
- UI may feel unintuitive (However, the people who would complain about it, would actually dislike SBS far more, even if it is more intuitive).
IMO, unhotkeyable MBS is a great compromise of the UI for both the casual and the competitive scene. It retains the multitasking (forcing you to return to your base), while removing the "cloning" of the repeated building clicks that is the primary criticism of SBS. It isn't necessarily that unintuitive if you just think of buildings as different entities from units.
I wonder who you mean with thouse people. I stated repeatedly that I´d rather have a proper SBS implementation than some weird "compromise".
Intutitive means that you DON´T have to think about it, that it is self explannory, at least from context.
I would really like to see the source for the "balanced" Micro Macro argument since right now Blizzard seems to go more for Micro wars with huge armys. On that depends the "view" after all that would switch 2 "cons" at MBS to "pros".
|
On March 25 2008 19:32 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2008 17:29 teamsolid wrote:
CONS:
- UI may feel unintuitive (However, the people who would complain about it, would actually dislike SBS far more, even if it is more intuitive).
IMO, unhotkeyable MBS is a great compromise of the UI for both the casual and the competitive scene. It retains the multitasking (forcing you to return to your base), while removing the "cloning" of the repeated building clicks that is the primary criticism of SBS. It isn't necessarily that unintuitive if you just think of buildings as different entities from units. I wonder who you mean with thouse people. I stated repeatedly that I´d rather have a proper SBS implementation than some weird "compromise". Intutitive means that you DON´T have to think about it, that it is self explannory, at least from context. I would really like to see the source for the "balanced" Micro Macro argument since right now Blizzard seems to go more for Micro wars with huge armys. On that depends the "view" after all that would switch 2 "cons" at MBS to "pros".
Like all people on B.Net forums? There are way more people who'd be more pleased with such a compromise rather than having to deal with SBS. You are in a minority. ;;
Also you don't have to think about it, unless you've got some really thick skull, so to speak... Just acknowledge the fact and live with it...
If they're not aiming for that balance, then they obviously don't know what makes SC such a great game in the first place. That would be sad. T_________T
As for teamsolid's post - if you add drag-selection (e.g. "hold ctrl and drag-select"), you gain the precision of SBS, resulting in even less "tedious clicking" but the same attention demand.
Also I dunno how "1 building per hotkey" is any more unintuitive than CNC3's lack of MBS and some weird tabs. Somehow the casual players were pleased with such an interface...
|
Actually, MBS increases the reward put on macro. You spend very little time on macro and you get a lot of reward for the time spend.
In SC spending time on macro was already better in many cases. Now it's humongous. In SC2 almost never will it be rewarding to sacrifice macro for micro because macro is so easy and still that powerful.
This means you always have to play with optimal macro. Now people who played SC will have no problem with this. And they have a lot of free time to micro as well.
But let's take 40 APM players. What should they do? Should they spread out their siege tanks or should they produce 8 more siege tanks? What is better to have? They can't do both.
I predict there will be no micro at all in very low level games, making the complaints of lesser players even bigger.
For low level players it will also not be rewarding to try to get a balanced army. Because with their low APM they will get less units that way.
In SC2 everyone will have to play the macro oriented style of SC. But it doesn't take much skill so you can't outplay your opponent in macro. So you have to play the macro style but then win the game through micro. That's how SC2 will be. No more micro style. No more low economy play. It doesn't become exponentially more difficult to macro the more bases you have. Going for big economy and big macro is always the best way to go.
I also predict this means we will see maps that make SC-style macro play impossible. No more natural expos.
|
That doesn't really make sense BlackStar.
Because the unit production time isn't faster. You can't suddenly have much more units just because of MBS. It's just easier to get them, but you don't get them faster (well, 1 second maybe, i.e. the time it would take to click through 9 rax. But that doesn't make a difference when new units only come every 30 sec or so). So there can't be any more shift to macro than there is already in SC1. It's just about reducing the time needed to issue the command to produce units. But the time after you which get the units is still the same... unless they make each unit pop out after 10 seconds or so. Which would be ridiculous to begin with. 
|
Your post doesn't make any sense. Units produce faster? You didn't read my post, did you?
[edit]
Ok, I think you did read my post but you just totally misunderstood because you understand nothing about playing Starcraft.
|
Oh well then in more detail.
On March 26 2008 01:39 BlackStar wrote:
Actually, MBS increases the reward put on macro. You spend very little time on macro and you get a lot of reward for the time spend.
It doesn't reward macro more. It does the opposite. The free time you gain from having MBS translates into more free time for micro. Which means that MBS rewards micro more, not macro.
The reward you get out of macro is the same: you get your units after they are done producing.
In SC spending time on macro was already better in many cases. Now it's humongous. In SC2 almost never will it be rewarding to sacrifice macro for micro because macro is so easy and still that powerful.
No. You have to use better micro or you will lose. Because your opponent will do it.
You seem to think: just because you have a bit more free time from MBS, you can still just play like you could in SC1. Which doesn't make sense. If you opponent uses that bit of free time to micro his forces better, you will lose many battles if you just sit back and think "ah I don't need to micro, macro is so easy and powerful!!!11"
... maybe it's clearer now what I meant.
|
|
|
If anyone saw the recent TL Attack episode. I think the 3v1 game really displayed the future of starcraft games. In the second game, with 3 people controlling one base, the tough part of the game moves to the ability to control many different attacks and fronts simultaniously while maintaining flawless macro. At one point, one player is dropping the main, while another is irradiating lurkers, and another is pushing on an expansion. Clearly there is room for growth in the ability of current players in terms of controlling units in multiple places. MBS will only bring this to fruition sooner.
|
Wholeheartedly agree with 0xDEADBEEF
|
That's not possible since he didn't read my post. That means you didn't as well.
|
Ok I'll reply to the rest, although it doesn't make much sense what you wrote. There's almost nothing worth replying to, but I'll try.
On March 26 2008 01:39 BlackStar wrote:
But let's take 40 APM players. What should they do? Should they spread out their siege tanks or should they produce 8 more siege tanks? What is better to have? They can't do both.
So? What would be different with SBS? They'd be even worse. I don't care what they should do. They should primarily get faster so they can get more important things done.
This is independent of SBS or MBS, as the problem will always persist. You can't do shit with 40 APM, so you have to choose what seems to be the most important thing at each time.
But in the end you'll lose anyway.
I don't see a point here, it's unrelated.
I predict there will be no micro at all in very low level games, making the complaints of lesser players even bigger.
Makes absolutely zero sense. I don't even know what to answer there because it's so useless.
Newbies are even worse with SBS because macro is actually harder to execute. Give them more time for micro (by adding MBS) and they'll use more micro.
For low level players it will also not be rewarding to try to get a balanced army. Because with their low APM they will get less units that way.
Same: no sense.
With SBS, they'll have even less units, and having a balanced army (or rather: a unit mix that's useful for the current situation) is always rewarding.
In SC2 everyone will have to play the macro oriented style of SC. But it doesn't take much skill so you can't outplay your opponent in macro. So you have to play the macro style but then win the game through micro. That's how SC2 will be. No more micro style. No more low economy play. It doesn't become exponentially more difficult to macro the more bases you have. Going for big economy and big macro is always the best way to go.
I also predict this means we will see maps that make SC-style macro play impossible. No more natural expos.
That's exactly the same in SC1. In SC1, macro is usually more rewarding than micro, i.e. there's no true 50/50 balance, it's more like 60 macro, 40 micro. Although I tend to think nowadays it's even 70/30. The only way to solve this imbalance is to reward the use of micro more. And how do you reward the use of micro more? Either by making unit production slower so that you can't just pump units and forget about the rest because you'll have a new army in 30 seconds, or by giving the players slightly more time to focus on micro. The latter would be the effect of MBS.
And outmacroing will always be possible, whether there is MBS or SBS. Because you seem to forget that macro is not only about mechanical multitasking skill. It's also about expanding at the right times, building upon your advantage, and for Zerg there's also the aspect of building drones at the right times, when you don't need the larvae for units.
This is the strategical aspect of macro. Seems like it's easy to overlook. But mastering this is hard too, because it requires experience, game sense and map control. Something that's equally easily overlooked I think. The whole debate is so focused on the physical component...
By the way this last paragraph is again an old argument.
I still vote for closing this thread. There's only like 10 people left posting here anyway, the most stubborn ones. There's nothing more to gain from this. It goes circles. We have to wait and see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
