|
On March 29 2008 11:57 Prose wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2008 05:00 GeneralStan wrote:
I think we can agree that unhotkeyable MBS is the best solution.
The only downside I can think of for it is that it is unintuitive, but as I've said before, any player who goes looking to put multiple buildings on a hotkey is a gamer a level who can probably understand that the restriction exists to foster a specific feel for the game of Starcraft. I disagree. There's a better solution: scaled MBS. It solves the 'untintuitiveness' while maintaing your and Deadbeef's idea of going back to base as essential. Read my post above.
Scaled MBS will be almost identicle in practice to the current version of MBS. Think of what is going to happen with MBS at the moment. A progamer, will have all his factories set up to key 5 for example. Every time he gets the minerals, he'll hit 5t. With scaled MBS, it will be the same. Unless he has a strong ecomony. And then will be pressing 5tt. The difference between these two styles is almost nonexistant. There will be no use for going back to base.
The unhotkeyable MBS means that macro (as far as unit building goes) will be almost indenticle for pros as it is now. But adds a handicap, so that a casual player can expend all his resources in a short amount of time. This method works well because it caters towards both groups.
|
On March 29 2008 12:54 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2008 11:57 Prose wrote:On March 28 2008 05:00 GeneralStan wrote:
I think we can agree that unhotkeyable MBS is the best solution.
The only downside I can think of for it is that it is unintuitive, but as I've said before, any player who goes looking to put multiple buildings on a hotkey is a gamer a level who can probably understand that the restriction exists to foster a specific feel for the game of Starcraft. I disagree. There's a better solution: scaled MBS. It solves the 'untintuitiveness' while maintaing your and Deadbeef's idea of going back to base as essential. Read my post above. Scaled MBS will be almost identicle in practice to the current version of MBS. Think of what is going to happen with MBS at the moment. A progamer, will have all his factories set up to key 5 for example. Every time he gets the minerals, he'll hit 5t. With scaled MBS, it will be the same. Unless he has a strong ecomony. And then will be pressing 5tt. The difference between these two styles is almost nonexistant. There will be no use for going back to base. The unhotkeyable MBS means that macro (as far as unit building goes) will be almost indenticle for pros as it is now. But adds a handicap, so that a casual player can expend all his resources in a short amount of time. This method works well because it caters towards both groups.
I see your point. I had removed the TAB presses as a middle ground, to cater to Blizzard's goal to make SC2 more micro-oriented, but only slightly. Hmm. I will restore the tab presses. Would that now work?
|
imo no compromise is possible because it would be absurdly complicated.
|
On March 29 2008 14:17 FragKrag wrote:
imo no compromise is possible because it would be absurdly complicated.
What about unhotkeyable MBS (i.e. 1 building max per hotkey)? That's not complicated at all.
How come I've never seen any of the most prominent critics of MBS comment on unhotkeyable MBS yet? Several people including me have posted in multiple different threads, but it gets ignored every time (purposefully?). If there's a huge problem with this solution, I'd like to hear your reasoning.
|
On March 29 2008 13:29 Prose wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2008 12:54 Fen wrote:On March 29 2008 11:57 Prose wrote:On March 28 2008 05:00 GeneralStan wrote:
I think we can agree that unhotkeyable MBS is the best solution.
The only downside I can think of for it is that it is unintuitive, but as I've said before, any player who goes looking to put multiple buildings on a hotkey is a gamer a level who can probably understand that the restriction exists to foster a specific feel for the game of Starcraft. I disagree. There's a better solution: scaled MBS. It solves the 'untintuitiveness' while maintaing your and Deadbeef's idea of going back to base as essential. Read my post above. Scaled MBS will be almost identicle in practice to the current version of MBS. Think of what is going to happen with MBS at the moment. A progamer, will have all his factories set up to key 5 for example. Every time he gets the minerals, he'll hit 5t. With scaled MBS, it will be the same. Unless he has a strong ecomony. And then will be pressing 5tt. The difference between these two styles is almost nonexistant. There will be no use for going back to base. The unhotkeyable MBS means that macro (as far as unit building goes) will be almost indenticle for pros as it is now. But adds a handicap, so that a casual player can expend all his resources in a short amount of time. This method works well because it caters towards both groups. I see your point. I had removed the TAB presses as a middle ground, to cater to Blizzard's goal to make SC2 more micro-oriented, but only slightly. Hmm. I will restore the tab presses. Would that now work?
This would make it even worse. Think about it, if you have to press tab, it means the each building is seperate from the other. For the progamer, he will have to manage his hotkeys, so he will click 5t. Then next time he has enough minerals, click 5tabt. Then when he has enough minerals again 5tabtabt. This will of course put a limit on the number of production buildings that would be efficient to have on each hotkey. So the result is like a slightly watered down version of starcraft's macro for them.
Lets look at the casual gamers. They want to be able to save up 1500 minerals and then build 15 zealots with 2 buttons. Your method means that they will save up 1500 minerals, and will still require 2 actions per zealot. To build their 15 zealots, even if they are at their base, they will have to click z tab z tab z tab z tab z tab z tab z tab z tab z tab z tab z tab z tab z tab z tab z tab z.
The 1 building per hotkey method means that noobs can still go back to their base and build 15 zealots with 2 buttons. But the pros will have to macro like they do in starcraft if they wish to be competative.
|
On March 29 2008 17:17 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2008 13:29 Prose wrote:On March 29 2008 12:54 Fen wrote:On March 29 2008 11:57 Prose wrote:On March 28 2008 05:00 GeneralStan wrote:
I think we can agree that unhotkeyable MBS is the best solution.
The only downside I can think of for it is that it is unintuitive, but as I've said before, any player who goes looking to put multiple buildings on a hotkey is a gamer a level who can probably understand that the restriction exists to foster a specific feel for the game of Starcraft. I disagree. There's a better solution: scaled MBS. It solves the 'untintuitiveness' while maintaing your and Deadbeef's idea of going back to base as essential. Read my post above. Scaled MBS will be almost identicle in practice to the current version of MBS. Think of what is going to happen with MBS at the moment. A progamer, will have all his factories set up to key 5 for example. Every time he gets the minerals, he'll hit 5t. With scaled MBS, it will be the same. Unless he has a strong ecomony. And then will be pressing 5tt. The difference between these two styles is almost nonexistant. There will be no use for going back to base. The unhotkeyable MBS means that macro (as far as unit building goes) will be almost indenticle for pros as it is now. But adds a handicap, so that a casual player can expend all his resources in a short amount of time. This method works well because it caters towards both groups. I see your point. I had removed the TAB presses as a middle ground, to cater to Blizzard's goal to make SC2 more micro-oriented, but only slightly. Hmm. I will restore the tab presses. Would that now work? This would make it even worse. Think about it, if you have to press tab, it means the each building is seperate from the other. For the progamer, he will have to manage his hotkeys, so he will click 5t. Then next time he has enough minerals, click 5tabt. Then when he has enough minerals again 5tabtabt. This will of course put a limit on the number of production buildings that would be efficient to have on each hotkey. So the result is like a slightly watered down version of starcraft's macro for them. Lets look at the casual gamers. They want to be able to save up 1500 minerals and then build 15 zealots with 2 buttons. Your method means that they will save up 1500 minerals, and will still require 2 actions per zealot. To build their 15 zealots, even if they are at their base, they will have to click z tab z tab z tab z tab z tab z tab z tab z tab z tab z tab z tab z tab z tab z tab z tab z. The 1 building per hotkey method means that noobs can still go back to their base and build 15 zealots with 2 buttons. But the pros will have to macro like they do in starcraft if they wish to be competative.
Sounds good to me.
|
i am 100% satisfied with unhotkeyable buildings for MBS, however i feel as though multiple warpgates should be hotkeyable, due to the nature of warpgates, and how it would limit their usage if you required the player to go back to the base, select them all, and then go back to warp location
|
You got to be consistent. Warp gates simply are not usefull without a proper inclusion of MBS and that is what advanced mechanics by advanced control aims to advocate.
The idea behind the "compromise" is that you have to distract the player from combat by forcing him to look at his base. We will see if Blizzard actually intends to do that or if they want the base(s) to be partly "remote controlable".
|
If they include drag-selection, you simply have to have your Warp Gates arranged well so that you're flexible when drag-selecting them. Warp Gates would be just as usefull that way, imo.
|
Blizzard should not remove MBS and other UI enhancements, but find ways to add more macro and micro instead of desperately clinging to current macro and micro.
Otherwise the game will be nothing more than Starcraft 1.5. And honestly, why not just play Starcraft 1 if this happens? Sequels that attempt to copy the original are rarely better - see Counterstrike Source for an example.
--
For example, we have smartcasting now, which means casting 5 storms isn't a progamer accomplishment anymore. However, Blizzard may consider adding a short cast time to storm instead; the micro skill of clicking rapidly is gone, but in its place is the micro skill of trying to predict where the bulk of the enemy army will be in three or five seconds. The audience will no longer cheer just because you got 10 storms off, but they will cheer because they land right where they do the most damage and kill the entire enemy army.
--
As for MBS, the implicit assumption is that spamming out the same unit from 10 gateways is the best way to win the game. Perhaps something should be done about this instead of removing MBS.
Obviously one needs tens of zealots or 15 tanks to win a game. But if creating masses of units is all there is to macro, the problem lies not with MBS but with the lack of meaningful macro in the game.
MMORPGs are frequently botted. Most players hate the unfair competition of farmbots. But instead of cracking down on botters, the developers should consider just why bots are in such high demand. Clearly, games that require little player skill and involve doing the same things over and over again encourage the use of 'UI enhancements' such as farmbots. Increasing the level of player skill required (and not making powerful items mandatory to have fun) would get rid of bots much more effectively.
--
Building placement, base construction and the like are also macro. While the importance of alternating clicks and 'z' presses may diminish, Blizzard should look into increasing the importance of base architecture macro.
A random idea would be a building that increases the power of nearby friendly units but takes a while to build; see how close to a battlefield in the middle of the map you can put it without losing it, or try and predict where the next fight will take place so you can put 5 of them in the neighbourhood.
There are some flaws with this idea where it concerns home base defense, but I'm just pointing out that one can do other stuff with buildings than click them and hit hotkeys until doomsday.
|
I don't understand why to make the game worse for the sake of it being different as well.
If Blizzard had some ideas to add more depth to the economy part of the game,.why didn't they add that from the beginning? They didn't try to innovate. You can't add things that should have been well thought out and tested concepts just to counterbalance an UI automation in a competitive game that you are just adding for the sake of leveling the playing field and pleasing people who don't want to play competitively.
SC2 is going to be what you call SC1.5. It has a new 3d engine, some new mechanics because of that. But it's just the same game but with new units that hopefully learn the lesson as to what makes a good competitive RTS game. So SC2 can have strategy as deep as the macro and micro. And games that are more unique, different and dynamic.
|
Xanrae, first of all, people won't hotkey all thei production buildings under one control group. Seconds of all, they won't produce units in waves, but rather one after another as soon as resources allow for an additional unit.
|
Guys, your gonna have to face it already. SC2 WILL be a worse game than SC:BW is. Why? Because the majority of people do not want to put any effort into it. Automining and MBS and all this stuff will be added for the sake of the common person whether we like it or not (If they even would care that MBS would not be included is a whole other discussion)
At the fundamental level of starcraft i really dont think that these UI changes are going to help anyone. If you go on battle net at any given time and just look at the sheer number of mind shattering noobs playing fastest and zero clutter and BGH you'll see that nothing is gonna help these people play the game better.
Not only that but you can see that even the worse players are fine with the game the way it is now! No one is gonna not buy Starcraft II just because you can't select multiple buildings. The majority of buyers will probably buy it, do the single player campaign, and be done. Some will stay and play UMS and Fastest on Bnet and whatnot. A very small number will get involved in the ladder and real gameplay.
So what we will instead have is a game fundamentally destroyed by all these new (and uneeded) UI "enhancements" because the skill ceiling will be so lowered. The game won't be able to survive as an e-Sport because every single game will have the same focus and every single player will have the same style (micro) and we all no that doesnt make for fun spectating.
And we do this for what? So that blizzard has maximum possibility of earning a few more bucks from the tiny demographic of picky people who would say "No MBS? This blows!" .... But Blizzard knows this and doesn't care. All they are really in for is the money. The more people who buy the game, enjoy it and then quit the better for them. Us people still hanging around after all this time arent making them any money after all.
So the game will get boring and die. And by that time Brood War will be long gone as well (probably, i would hope that it wouldnt but i can't see it surviving this) But.... this is to be expected. The whole human race is moving in this direction. Everything will continue to be dumbed down.
So i shall say this in advance. Goodbye Starcraft. I will miss you.
|
SC2's new gameplay elements/mechanics will sometimes require MBS for them to be used efficiently. You have to keep that in mind.
Otherwise no one will use warpgates and the like, or everyone will complain about how extremely annoying the SBS controls are.
It would be comparable to changing rally points from multiple production buildings in SC1 (click on each gate -> click on each destination): although it requires a "big" time investment, and could therefore be considered a "skill", most people think it's extremely annoying and prefer not to do it at all.
So even if MBS should pose a problem to macro, it's still kind of necessary and if these problems arise, they should be fixed by adding a new macro aspect.
Or in other words:
If macro becomes too watered down: MBS + new macro aspects forcing players to switch to base more often > SBS > MBS
If macro doesn't become too watered down: MBS > *
That's why I see no real reason to again use SBS for SC2, at least on a theoretical level. Who knows what Blizzard is going to do with the game.
|
What new macro aspects? Show them to me please.
|
Using Warp Gates with drag-selection + "unhotkeyable" MBS is just as easy as using it with an ordinary MBS system. ;;
Also they haven't figured out any macro intensive tasks so far, and they probably did not even think it was important untill now. ;/
|
On March 30 2008 03:40 Tinithor wrote:
Not only that but you can see that even the worse players are fine with the game the way it is now! No one is gonna not buy Starcraft II just because you can't select multiple buildings. The majority of buyers will probably buy it, do the single player campaign, and be done. Some will stay and play UMS and Fastest on Bnet and whatnot. A very small number will get involved in the ladder and real gameplay.
This would be more accurate if it were like 8 years ago, there will be tons of people playing sc2 online, on all skill levels, saying that the people who likes MBS are the ones who wont contribute at all to the game is not accurate in any level.
Imagine how many people would still play starcraft today if the visual werent so outdated and the skill barrier not as big, i tell you, sc2 has the potential to get dozens of millions onto battle net, and thats exacly what any game needs to get a pro scene going.
Balance will come, be strong, and believe!
|
The pro scene cannot survive with all the simplification thats happening to Sc2. There will be nothing left to do in the game but micro for pros. Don't talk about harrassment and all that nonsense because thats already in the game. What MBS will actually do is make harrassment less effective because players have more time to pay attention to defending against it rather than macroing.
They are not adding anything new in the game to make up for all the losses of things to do.
|
You see only the door the closes, look around and realize others open
|
I would if there were any. What exactly are they changing to the game to make up for this? Nothing that they have shown us atleast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
