|
NrG.ZaM, I like your last argument, as it's reasonable and something that might actually occur.
"In a 25% faster version of starcraft, the game will tend more toward macro and timing than fancy micro. This also makes it less approachable by non-players, since it's fairly simple to watch micro and understand what's going on, but you can't just look at timing. Being required to learn the game before actually making sense of what's happening isn't good for the game as an e-sport."
I agree about the game probably switching more towards macro and timing attacks. But we'll just have to disagree about all of your other paragraphs. The claims you are making in those paragraphs are basically just pulled out of your ass, and hardly anchored in any empirical evidence of the evolution of Starcraft throughout the past 10 years (that's the difference between your comments and mine).
There's absolutely nothing impossible about handling a 25% faster mining rate while being harassed. Just as there was no problem in handling a ~25%-50% higher mining rate when switching from fast to fastest in SC I. There is nothing superhuman about handling a 25% faster gamerate.
* Basically Starcraft: Brood War has been evolving towards a more macro and timing oriented game ever since its release 1999. Progaming has been evolving towards more macro and timing at a steady pace. I don't think there's any denying this. This is actually happening without actually speeding up the game.
... Therefore I argue that an increased game speed of 25% will not necessarily be a bad thing. Micro is still in the game despite the obvious development in macro and timing attack builds throughout the years. Likewise, micro will prevail a 25% speed increase, just like it prevailed in the switch from fast to fastest.
* Players don't have infinite multitask abilities. How comfy for us that Blizzard has decided to implement MBS and unlimited unit selection then. The recent discussions have often been circled about how to compensate for this lack of macro.
... I argue a 25% FFS (faster fastest setting) will help fill some of the holes that MBS and unlimited selection has left for us. Sure you gotta spend minerals at a 25% higher rate while handling harass. But then again, you can hotkey 10 barracks to one key, you can queue supply depots, you can select 50 marines into one control group. I kind of think it's managable... don't you?
Still haven't gotten one valid argument from you ZaM. Except for that last paragraph, that was well phrased and thought out.
You simply claiming it to be impossible to micro mutas 25% faster and to macro while being harassed at a 25% higher speed setting doesn't make it true.
I'd appreciate if you gave examples as to why it would be impossible. Such as eazo in the comment above, making an comparison to RA2 and stating that there can be such a thing as a "too fast" setting for a game. That's an argument.
What you're doing is claiming stuff pulled out of your ass as truth. And arguing that is impossible.
|
If you aren't aware, there is either a patch or a ums that made bw run at x2 x4 and x8 speeds in real gaming. I can't remember if it was a patch everyone had to have, or just a ums. The game was very very difficult. Just splitting workers was impossible. I generally split really fast, and have it done before the last drone clears the hatchery. This speed setting increase caused me to not be able to even split any before they reached the minerals. Also, the units move so fast constant screen position adjustments for micro occupy a majority of your mouse time. So basically, the only productive way to play at the setting was to play with the screen never watching units in battle. Instead, just use brute force.
I guess we can adapt to anything, but imo it just wasn't as enjoyable to play nor obs a game at these speeds. Next time you host a replay set it to x4 and pretend your doing the micro at this speed.
|
On May 03 2008 22:30 yare wrote:
I guess we can adapt to anything, but imo it just wasn't as enjoyable to play nor obs a game at these speeds. Next time you host a replay set it to x4 and pretend your doing the micro at this speed.
I bet thats how the guys at PCG think and feel about our fastest. Not saying your points arent valid however. The C&C fastest setting in some of their games are ridiculous.
|
They should only implement this if MBS turns out to hurt the game. It can balance out any potential unbalanced effects coming from a better UI.
It may also be good that games will then be over faster. In SC1, the start is simply too boring. (Ok, having 6 workers at start is probably going to remedy that already). I mean, most games are approximately 15 minutes long, and the start where usually NOTHING happens (unless you do a very fast rush which on most maps is highly risky) is ~5 minutes. That's like 1/3 of wasted time each game.
|
On May 03 2008 16:26 Polyphasic wrote:
fastest = perfect balance between micro and macro.
faster than fastest= more focus on macro.
slower than fastest = more focus on micro Agreed.
Im the only one who think it would be better to make Fastest as the only game speed? I mean, no speed option in the game. Just one to make the game standardized.
Why do you need the other speeds if nobody uses them? Just when watching reps.
|
warcraft 2 had some pretty damn unreasonable speed settings
i've always kind of wanted to play starcraft at 2x fastest speed and while it might be more "competitive" you'll rapidly hit the threshold where the game is no longer spectatable
|
Don't go beyond fastest unless as an obvious joke setting. I love the speed element to Starcraft, but there are limits to what the human hands can do.
Fastest x2 as a joke could be pretty interesting though. I doubt people would really take that seriously -- I hope.
|
I fell in love with starcraft because first and foremost, it is a fun game to play.
Speeding up the gameplay any further than the current "fastest" setting will not make me have a fanboygasm at the 'omfg d00d look @ the pros and their mega fast APMZ". It will detract from the fun factor for the overwhelming majority of the gaming community.
Starcraft isn't good because it requires APM, and making it require even more APM will not make it better -.-. It saddens me that so many tlers think this is the case...
|
United States12235 Posts
On May 03 2008 13:04 gwho wrote:
why is it that people seem to assume that any faster setting will result in the pro gaming community to automatically opt for the maximum speed? it is an option. since no one uses normal, slow, slower or sloweest, why not scoot over the entire spectrum, so we can have really fast stuff. the standard setting should not be at the edge of the spectrum. and the pro community will obviously choose a reasonable speed setting, even if there is a super duper cracked up speed. duh
History lesson: "Faster" and "Fastest" speeds were implemented in SC1 as "joke speeds" and were never intended for competitive play. That's why they don't appear in the Ladder. However, the average player with an APM of 50 isn't capable of utilizing the additional time granted by a slower game speed (Fast, which is close to half the game speed of Fastest) therefore they deem the Fast setting as too slow, because it's just more waiting time for units and structures to be created. You must take into account trends of the masses, then you can extrapolate the reactions of Blizzard. Because the majority of players played on Fastest, all players then were forced to adapt to this high speed, regardless of its official status as a "joke speed". Competitions emerged with the official game speed of Fastest, progamers then proved it was possible to play at speeds beyond expectations on Fastest, then finally the official Ladder speed was changed to include Fastest.
The order was 50-APM average players on Fastest evolved into a select few 400-APM players on Fastest. What you are intending is to raise the cap even further, even after anticipating that 400 APM players exist. However, that's fallacious because there is so much multitasking required in Starcraft that APM reaches a peak, so if you hope that a Beyond-Fastest speed setting will give rise to 600- or 800-APM players (or using the example multiplier, 3200-APM players), you're going to be disappointed.
|
well sc2 looks a lil slow so making it a tad faster will be good. just a tad tho
|
On May 03 2008 22:30 yare wrote:
If you aren't aware, there is either a patch or a ums that made bw run at x2 x4 and x8 speeds in real gaming. I can't remember if it was a patch everyone had to have, or just a ums. The game was very very difficult. Just splitting workers was impossible. I generally split really fast, and have it done before the last drone clears the hatchery. This speed setting increase caused me to not be able to even split any before they reached the minerals. Also, the units move so fast constant screen position adjustments for micro occupy a majority of your mouse time. So basically, the only productive way to play at the setting was to play with the screen never watching units in battle. Instead, just use brute force.
These were the ums maps with player 13 scarab (and some other tricks).
I think they dont work anymore.
They were pretty buggy e.g. idle units did not attack alone, you had to order them to do so, or attack move - but it made them even more micro intensive. Personally I believe that these maps sucked. There was an LT temple, with the build times cut down and it all looked like a macro-click fest. As Yare said, people would just spend most time macroing (well, the pros could micro too) and these maps were no fun at all.
Actually, there is a map called (8)Turbo in the starcraft folder, where the unit movement is standard, but the build times are like 1/4 of the standard ones. I advise you to try it. It's kinda weird.
|
it sounds like a good idea, but then again, its cuz i have high apm
|
I think that if you want to you should be able play up to like 10-20x normal speed. Would be fun^^ Should not be hard to implement as a feature.
|
yall talk about APM. What about accuracy.
Build base make units attack-move your army, repeat till someone leaves the game chores yawn.
|
How can you talk about not even being able to do a proper split at a faster fastest speed when sc2 splits the workers for you? How can you talk about 1.5x speed being macro only when you can have all your gateways in one group? How can you say 2x speed would be way too fast for sc2 (notice the number) if you have barely tested it?
I see nothing wrong with including a 1.25x, 1.5x and 2x speed. A faster setting could even possibly help to balance that what mbs takes away from macro, as long as the game still would be watchable
|
On May 03 2008 17:55 Danger_Duck wrote:Seriously though, rumor has it the current "fastest" was meant to be a joke speed...look how that turned out 
rumor has it that the ghost's lockdown abilities and the medic's restore abilities were actually supposed to be a usable part of the game... and with fast speed, i'm sure that it would be.
now with fastest being the norm, look how that turned out...
restoring 7 marines with medics on normal speed = feasible. restoring 7marines on fast speed = ya right... got better things to do.
|
lol , select build, click on the ground and the building almost instantly apears, produce a unit and it pops right away, click all the way across the minimap with your army selected and 2 seconds later your units are already there. That would be some insane Starcraft lol. Doubt many computers would be able to deal with such speeds tough.
|
The problem is multiplayer, can the players choose their speed? That would be messed up
|
3 Lions
United States3705 Posts
hm...
that would be interesting, but i dont think many ppl would like it
|
On May 04 2008 08:00 il0seonpurpose wrote:
The problem is multiplayer, can the players choose their speed? That would be messed up
Players can do that in warcraft and starcraft already, but its locked once the game starts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
