I think the current fastest should be normal or fast on SC2 (as well as be the standard speed for games) This way you can speed it up if you want for fun or still make it slower still too.

edahl

Norway483 Posts

May 20 2008 22:30 GMT

#82

Faster than fastest? Does not compute. If your speed up a game, it always reaches a point where you can't keep up at all, and it looks like a fast-forward replay. StarCraft is close to this threshold, with fastest being twice the pace of "normal." If the effective disadvantage of idle time for i.e. an SCV is twice of what it is now, the game would become unbalanced, frustrating and uncontrollable. It would come to a point where you didn't have time for anything but building pylons to keep up with production, and the balance between micro and macro would vanish.

Don't see the point of a faster game, unless all citizens of all countries of all the world were required to pop amphetamines on an hourly basis.

generic88

United States118 Posts

September 21 2009 07:12 GMT

#83

I was just about to make a thread on this very subject but I decided to use the search feature instead. As such I will post here rather than creating another thread.

Many players currently feel that SC2 will be too easy, possible to master, because the improved UI decreases the "needed" APM making for a reachable skill ceiling. To counteract this many are suggesting different "macro mechanics" in order to try to bring more "needed" clicks into the game. However Broodwar was not impossible to master because of the number of tasks a player needed to accomplish. It was impossible because players did not have enough time to do all of these tasks perfectly (if you doubt me go play a BW game on normal and watch your macro become godly).

All of the recent posts concerning macro and micro. It all comes down to the fact that the UI improvements decrease the number of actions a player must do in a certain period of time. Almost all of the suggested 'macro mechanics' have seemed artificial, this is because they are. The solution then is obvious, decrease the amount of time players have to accomplish necessary tasks.

I'm not necessarily saying "multiply game speed by 1000!"; I'm talking about increasing the game speed to the point where the game's tension becomes equivalent to that of Broodwar's. Instead of increasing the number of tasks, decrease the allotted time to complete those tasks. Done sufficiently the skill ceiling can be made equal to that of Broodwar's.

If the game's speed must be increased to such a point that it will not work as a spectator sport to do this, then that is really the only important problem to address. If this is the case than the game's speed should still be increased to the equilibrium point before this happens. That said, I very seriously doubt it would be increased to that extent, as a generation growing up with video games we are accustomed to them (fast, loud, bright, we can follow it still).

Ota Solgryn

Denmark2011 Posts

September 21 2009 08:12 GMT

#84

I want to agree with this, but just as you say that macro mechanics seem artificial, so will "unrealistic" high game speed.

I think what really needs to be done is to make sure a lot of herassment/skirmishes/splitting armies up is possible and especially viable for all races. This will increase the amount of multitasking and in turn give rise to a high skill ceiling.

Of course everything will be easy if the game speed is too slow, but I think raising it more than it was in BW on fastest will seem very strange and aritficial (imagine rines sprintin like movement, would also look strange).

pzea469

United States1520 Posts

September 21 2009 08:57 GMT

#85

i just thought of it, and maybe its dumb cuz its 2 in the morning and im really tired. But i just thought that it would be cool be able to adjust speed of unit movement and attack but not of building things or units being made. This wouldn't affect workers. The reason would be to train in your micro, but still be able to experience the proper timings.

ShaperofDreams

Canada2492 Posts

September 21 2009 09:18 GMT

#86

I'd like to have it as an option maybe in the map editor or something, purely for training/fuxing around purposes. SC2 would suffer as a spectator sport if it was used competitively.

Kazius

Israel1456 Posts

September 21 2009 11:26 GMT

#87

I think it's a Blizzard plot to make Jaedong invincible.

XsebT

Denmark2980 Posts

September 21 2009 11:53 GMT

#88

I'd personally prefer just ONE game speed, which is about fastest from BW. Because, if a sc2 "faster" setting excisted, I believe people will play that rather than normal to make the game as hard as possible.
...Imho, they should keep it simple to avoid confusion.

Tom Phoenix

1114 Posts

September 21 2009 15:28 GMT

#89

According to GameMecca, SC2 is already faster then the original. Considering how observers can already have trouble following the original SC, I think increasing the speed any more would become impossible to follow.

Besides, speed is not really a substitute. If there are any problems with the macro mechanics, then it is the macro mechanics themselves that need to be fixed (although, to be honest, I think the only reason why people think they are "artificial" is beacuse they are not used to them).

ProoM

Lithuania1741 Posts

September 21 2009 15:57 GMT

#90

I don't think its good for training, because it messes up your timing sense, tho it can be pretty fun to play for fun for players with high apm.

TwilightStar

United States649 Posts

September 22 2009 00:31 GMT

#91

I'm going to agree with Generic88, It needs to be at least as fast as BW, or even a slight bit faster. I think they should however, make a faster speed than that, just for a fun game with a friend, but it cant be used in an actual ladder game maybe?

numLoCK

Canada1416 Posts

September 22 2009 03:59 GMT

#92

I like the current system/speed, I don't think they should make it much faster. Also, the speed that people play should be "fastest" imo, because I really don't want to have to deal with different people wanting to play at different speeds.

ArvickHero

10387 Posts

September 22 2009 04:07 GMT

#93

FMP but with gold minerals?

Lol jk, a faster speed would require a lot more APM and higher skill, but there will still be the "less things to do" problem that plagues SC2.

OmgIRok

Taiwan2699 Posts

September 22 2009 04:19 GMT

#94

"Beta" version of faster than fastest lol:

+ Show Spoiler +

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=80446

It probably wouldn't work out very good, considering how the spoiler works out

Catch]22

Sweden2683 Posts

September 22 2009 12:56 GMT

#95

On May 03 2008 12:06 gwho wrote:
Could this even be a possible "solution" to the MBS problem that collapses the skill ceiling to the point of being on par with a D player?

No. It wont anyway.

PobTheCad

Australia893 Posts

September 22 2009 14:14 GMT

#96

it will never happen
people will choose one speed and everyone will play that speed , just like the original