|
i'm really looking forward to the feature that allows speeds faster than the "fastest" setting in SC1. and blizzard has mentioned that they were experimenting with it.
By implementing the SC1 "fastest" speed in SC2 as "normal", and having faster settings, players with super fast APM can then duke it out in an ultra speedy game, where raw APM will be rewarded very generously. And it will also be a training tool for aspiring players who want to be competetive and increase their APM.
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? After all, slow players in SC1 could "level" the playing field by setting it to slower speeds. In SC2, there should be something to increase and decrease, instead of being maxed out at "fastest", especially if MBS in one form another is going to stay.
(please don't turn this thread primarily into an MBS argument; this thread is about the speed setting)
|
Speed freaks!!!
I wouldn't mind extra speed settings, I doubt they'll hurt somebody. People will generally agree to play on a certain setting, so it won't be a problem.
|
That sounds like blitz chess, and sounds fun and cool, useful for quick fun extra casual games
|
I think Starcraft's Fastest speed is just perfect. Any faster would ruin it in my opinion. With super fast speed your APM will become so important that it will unbalance the game.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
it sounds like a fun idea. though i hope the competitive scene doesn't use that setting cause then i'd be pretty pissed 
|
I don't think it should be any faster. Though, I'm saying that out of self interest since I have trouble clicking on moving units as it is.
|
On May 03 2008 12:16 UmmTheHobo wrote:I think Starcraft's Fastest speed is just perfect. Any faster would ruin it in my opinion. With super fast speed your APM will become so important that it will unbalance the game.
i do think the fastest speed is the best setting. that's why i'm saying it should be crowned and coronated as "normal" in SC2. that perfect speed becomes the norm, and then you can go faster or slower from that point. and it will unbalance the game - that's the whole point. xp for APM freaks and for training.
|
As long as the new normal is actually the norm, then a silly fast setting seems perfectly reasonable for those willing. I just hope it doesn't become common online, otherwise I'm not going to bother becoming a robot just to have fun in a game.
|
On May 03 2008 12:32 gwho wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2008 12:16 UmmTheHobo wrote:I think Starcraft's Fastest speed is just perfect. Any faster would ruin it in my opinion. With super fast speed your APM will become so important that it will unbalance the game. i do think the fastest speed is the best setting. that's why i'm saying it should be crowned and coronated as "normal" in SC2. that perfect speed becomes the norm, and then you can go faster or slower from that point. and it will unbalance the game - that's the whole point. xp for APM freaks and for training.
The proscene will use the fastest speed setting, unless of course its a joke setting. The reason being because pros will be practicing on the fastest speed, so why stop them?
|
If the pro-scene uses any faster settings its going to go downhill as a spectator-sport. It's good like it is now, fast-paced but still looking 'natural'.
|
i think the current fastest is fine. theyre speeding up the early early game (re: the first two minutes) by adding extra workers, so anything faster isnt really necessary
|
I think it looks natural because we are used to.
At first, fast looked natural, and fastest was like woooho, stop cafeine dude!
So my guess is, if they implement a "faster fastest" then people will slowly get used to it... and it'll become natural again. Thus, no problem?
Not saying about super fastest speed though, which would remain marginal to me
|
If battle.net has auto matchmaking and a ladder (which it most certainly will), there will have to be some standardized speed setting for ranks and positions to be meaningful. It'd be kind of silly for b.net to only match "faster" players with other "faster" players and fragment the ladder. If they offer faster speed settings that end up being adopted by progamers, it will make their matchmaking system useless.
|
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
|
On May 03 2008 12:16 UmmTheHobo wrote:I think Starcraft's Fastest speed is just perfect. Any faster would ruin it in my opinion. With super fast speed your APM will become so important that it will unbalance the game.
It could be so fast that this is the point of it. It'd be like playing 255 fast and free or wtf mode in dota.
|
|
|
On May 03 2008 12:32 gwho wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2008 12:16 UmmTheHobo wrote:I think Starcraft's Fastest speed is just perfect. Any faster would ruin it in my opinion. With super fast speed your APM will become so important that it will unbalance the game. i do think the fastest speed is the best setting. that's why i'm saying it should be crowned and coronated as "normal" in SC2. that perfect speed becomes the norm, and then you can go faster or slower from that point. and it will unbalance the game - that's the whole point. xp for APM freaks and for training.
While I think it would be pretty crazy to play it casually sometimes, I don't really think it would help with APM. It wouldn't help for training because it would fuck up your sense of time in the game.
|
On May 03 2008 13:41 ZianG wrote:
I like it the way it is.
Its main application is probably for training... progamers would definitely benefit from such a mode.
|
I think it would be great if it could easily be added as a UMS trigger instead of an actual game setting.
|
I would only support this if it were fastest as normal, and then super-fastest being above that, but being so ridiculously absurdly fast that it would never be played competitively, but only for shits and giggles. There's a slippery slope to be trod if you just keep ratcheting up the speed, or allowing higher speeds than maximize gameplay.
|
Haven't you ever gotten that annoying feeling that the game you're playing is lagging like hell after watching a couple of replays at x2-x4 speeds?
It's just about the same feeling that strikes you when moving from Fastest to Fast.
Thus I think a faster fastest setting would be adopted fairly quickly. I personally wouldn't mind the new "fastest" setting being 1.5x faster than the current one. That would actually be perfect. Not really noticable in a game-altering kind of way, but rather just as an enhancement to the new game.
x2 would be way too fast imo. But 1.25x-1.5x would definitely be doable. I don't see any draw backs. It would give the game a "new" and fresh feel. And I think Blizzard wants something to spice it up a bit, something to make the 3d game more exotic and stand out from its 2d counterpart.
I approve of the FFS -- faster fastest setting -campaign
And so should you! Being pro-FFS is the new fad after the MBS got so ridicilously outdated.
|
Anything faster than SC1 fastest is silly. Can we please remember this is a tactical strategy game, not a reflex/apm tester. I played quakeworld to an extremely high level, and BW to a decent level. Those are probably the two deepest and nuanced 1v1 multiplayer games ever. I'm all for making the game hardcore, and i am against newbifying the game, but come one, there has to be reward for people who have brilliant strategic play but not necessarily light speed APM. Otherwise what is the point?
There is a rare breed that can combine the two, and good on (or god damn?) them  . But a pure APM player doesn't deserve to be rewarded over a pure strategy player, there has to be a balance. In my opinion, great tactics and timing with mid level APM should > frenzied APM everytime, that is how it should be.
I have been reading these forums for years. It seems to me alot of people on here who actively campaign for ridiculously hardcore inclusions into SC2 would never have the ability to actually use these to their advantage, they just want to see replays of pro Koreans using it. More elite VODS/reps to the collection, yay.
What next, an APM based ladder?
"pfft, i'm not playing you ya n00b, your stats say you are only a 200 APM'er. I don't vs. anyone under 350 thx"
APM automatch?
"HAY I GOT AUTOMATCHED TO SOMEONE WITH 200 APM BUT THEN IN OUR GAME HE HAD 500 APM. FUCKEN HACKERS.BLIZZARD SUXX. MY LADDER RATING IS RUINED. THANKS BLIZZARD"
|
it will be faster and looser, good for a casual game.
both players will play worse, but its a good way to play if you only have a tiny bit of time
|
The fastest setting will always be the competitive speed because it increases the skill required to play the game. And we like seeing skill correlate with with wins.
|
Hyper Speed Setting sounds ridiculous, wonder how long it will take players to master it.
|
I think it should be in there, but be ridiculously fast for kicks, or at least Blizzard should allow a similar thing to be implemented. Think like SSB "Super Sudden Death" style, where all players start with 300% damage.
It shouldn't be played competitively, but Super Sudden Death is very fun. It would be hilarious seeing people trying to keep up with ridiculously fast speed.
That being said, I do NOT think it should be legal in ladder, and in fact, maybe not even be a normal speed setting available under options, but maybe a setting that can be done in UMS maps.
|
fastest = perfect balance between micro and macro.
faster than fastest= more focus on macro.
slower than fastest = more focus on micro
|
30 second 4 pool
2 minute nuke rush
max out in under 5?
|
On May 03 2008 13:57 LaLuSh wrote:
Haven't you ever gotten that annoying feeling that the game you're playing is lagging like hell after watching a couple of replays at x2-x4 speeds?
It's just about the same feeling that strikes you when moving from Fastest to Fast.
Thus I think a faster fastest setting would be adopted fairly quickly. I personally wouldn't mind the new "fastest" setting being 1.5x faster than the current one. That would actually be perfect. Not really noticable in a game-altering kind of way, but rather just as an enhancement to the new game.
x2 would be way too fast imo. But 1.25x-1.5x would definitely be doable. I don't see any draw backs. It would give the game a "new" and fresh feel. And I think Blizzard wants something to spice it up a bit, something to make the 3d game more exotic and stand out from its 2d counterpart.
I approve of the FFS -- faster fastest setting -campaign
And so should you! Being pro-FFS is the new fad after the MBS got so ridicilously outdated.
do you realize that with anything faster than fastest, micro will become non existent?
TvZ mm vs lurk. hahaha
reaver harass terran base with tanks? hahahaha.
turtling will become the norm. it'll be almost impossible to attack early on with harass.
muta harass? it'll go out the door.
current build orders are already moving towards macro. 2 gate vs terran is so out in the pro scene. make the game any faster and mechanics and timing will all be out the door.
currently, maybe a window for a timing rush is 30 seconds? how about doubling the game speed and reduce that down to 15 seconds? good luck with timing rushes...
|
They should make fastest the new normal, and maybe create a hyper mode.
But they should not make a speed slider. It will always creep up to the faster side. 2 or 3 settings would be fine (a slower mode for parents maybe?).
|
i think a hyper mode should be put in for fun :}
|
On May 03 2008 16:32 Polyphasic wrote:
do you realize that with anything faster than fastest, micro will become non existent?
TvZ mm vs lurk. hahaha
reaver harass terran base with tanks? hahahaha.
turtling will become the norm. it'll be almost impossible to attack early on with harass.
muta harass? it'll go out the door.
current build orders are already moving towards macro. 2 gate vs terran is so out in the pro scene. make the game any faster and mechanics and timing will all be out the door.
currently, maybe a window for a timing rush is 30 seconds? how about doubling the game speed and reduce that down to 15 seconds? good luck with timing rushes...
And what exactly do you base these opinions on? Did micro become non-existant when players switched from fast to fastest back in 1999-2000 ? I bet you're one of those not having played one single b.net ladder game back when the speed setting was set to fast and it actually was popular. I remember microing ranged units was such a joy on fast, as you'd actually have the time to do it properly. With fastest I initially felt impeded, but eventually got used to it to the point where fast became annoying.
What exactly are YOUR arguments?
By what nonsensical logic would micro disappear if the speed was turned up by 25% or 50% ?
What the hell would be different with reaver harassing (except for the fact that reavers aren't in the current SC II build) ? Shuttle would move faster, scarabs would fire faster after the reaver was dropped. All these things theoretically benefit someone who is good at microing and multitasking.
Why would "reaver harass terran base with tanks? hahahah", be impossible if the shuttle moved 25% faster, if the scarabs fired 25% faster, if the reaver spent 25% more time in the shuttle? In my opinion reaver harass would require MORE attention of the terran player than it does the protoss. Terran has to follow that shuttle with his tanks to any cost.
If you on the other hand were arguing for something stupid along the lines of: "uhuhuh, terran will have turrets if the game is 2x faster, good luck reaver harassing!!!". Duh, knucklehead, the protoss will have reavers 2x faster as well. And I was never proposing a 2x increase. 1.25x to 1.5x is plenty and enough.
And what'll be wrong with muta harass? Can you explain instead of just claiming stuff totally unsupported by arguments? I bet 25%-50% faster mutalisks in the hands of players like jaedong and savior would be a pain in the ass for any terran player. It would require tremendous effort to keep the M&M's well positioned.
And if the window for a timing attack is 30 seconds for an attack within the first 5-10 minutes, a 1.25x-1.5x increase will only decrease the window by about 5-8 seconds.
I don't feel that is too much of a sacrifice. The ability to make ultra fast tech or strategy switches (to more macro oriented style) will more than make up for it. Players will have to be on their toes and boost performances compared to SC1.
A timing push might still come at the 5 minute mark. Only difference is that it might involve 18 zealots with +1 speed instead of 12. Or, better yet: the timing push will perhaps be pushed forward a minute or two making the game even more action packed and unpredictable...
So... What exactly are you arguments again?
|
On May 03 2008 17:21 LaLuSh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2008 16:32 Polyphasic wrote:
do you realize that with anything faster than fastest, micro will become non existent?
TvZ mm vs lurk. hahaha
reaver harass terran base with tanks? hahahaha.
turtling will become the norm. it'll be almost impossible to attack early on with harass.
muta harass? it'll go out the door.
current build orders are already moving towards macro. 2 gate vs terran is so out in the pro scene. make the game any faster and mechanics and timing will all be out the door.
currently, maybe a window for a timing rush is 30 seconds? how about doubling the game speed and reduce that down to 15 seconds? good luck with timing rushes...
And what exactly do you base these opinions on? Did micro become non-existant when players switched from fast to fastest back in 1999-2000 ? I bet you're one of those not having played one single b.net ladder game back when the speed setting was set to fast and it actually was popular. I remember microing ranged units was such a joy on fast, as you'd actually have the time to do it properly. With fastest I initially felt impeded, but eventually got used to it to the point where fast became annoying. What exactly are YOUR arguments? By what nonsensical logic would micro disappear if the speed was turned up by 25% or 50% ? What the hell would be different with reaver harassing (except for the fact that reavers aren't in the current SC II build) ? Shuttle would move faster, scarabs would fire faster after the reaver was dropped. All these things theoretically benefit someone who is good at microing and multitasking. Why would "reaver harass terran base with tanks? hahahah", be impossible if the shuttle moved 25% faster, if the scarabs fired 25% faster, if the reaver spent 25% more time in the shuttle? In my opinion reaver harass would require MORE attention of the terran player than it does the protoss. Terran has to follow that shuttle with his tanks to any cost. If you on the other hand were arguing for something stupid along the lines of: "uhuhuh, terran will have turrets if the game is 2x faster, good luck reaver harassing!!!". Duh, knucklehead, the protoss will have reavers 2x faster as well. And I was never proposing a 2x increase. 1.25x to 1.5x is plenty and enough. And what'll be wrong with muta harass? Can you explain instead of just claiming stuff totally unsupported by arguments? I bet 25%-50% faster mutalisks in the hands of players like jaedong and savior would be a pain in the ass for any terran player. It would require tremendous effort to keep the M&M's well positioned. And if the window for a timing attack is 30 seconds for an attack within the first 5-10 minutes, a 1.25x-1.5x increase will only decrease the window by about 5-8 seconds. I don't feel that is too much of a sacrifice. The ability to make ultra fast tech or strategy switches (to more macro oriented style) will more than make up for it. Players will have to be on their toes and boost performances compared to SC1. A timing push might still come at the 5 minute mark. Only difference is that it might involve 18 zealots with +1 speed instead of 12. Or, better yet: the timing push will perhaps be pushed forward a minute or two making the game even more action packed and unpredictable... So... What exactly are you arguments again?
Just one problem with all your faster micro analysis: the controlling player still has to macro.
When that shuttle is zipping around 25% faster, that reaver is firing 25% faster, rebuilding scarabs faster, being chased and fired upon faster, more time will be required watching it, and while all this is going on, your resources are piling up 25% faster. Damage required to even stay in the game at that point would be extreme.
Mutalisk micro? Same situation: muta micro takes a great deal of effort to do properly, and one slip-up can practically ruin it, so not only do you have to be very careful and watch the mutas, you now have to do it 25% faster!
Players don't have infinite multitask abilities. 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.
So... What exactly are you arguments again?
|
Oh boy...I've learned to be efficient with my measly 70 apm, but on higher speeds....
|
Seriously though, rumor has it the current "fastest" was meant to be a joke speed...look how that turned out 
|
I could play at super high speeds just for fun, on ladder I demand normal (sc1 fastest) speed !!
|
You know, I bet you that they had this exact same discussion with "normal" and "fastest" when they were making SC in the first place.
|
Micro-intensive tactics and strategies would fall of the grid. SC2 will become a cookiecuttergame. Increasing the speed will reduce the possibilties of the game severely on every level of game. It would only be good to those who lack creativity. The gameflow is already sped up by the 2 extra workers and the extra unitabilities.
I think apm among players is distributed in a bellshaped curve. When the game is sped up the the curve would shift to the right and widen a bit, but apm on average would increase less then 25% if the game is sped up 25%. We would lose a lot of players on the slow side of the Bell-curve. A lot more than we would gain. Due to human limitations micro-intensive strategies will be less rewarding and unviable.
Macro would become the norm. It would become too hard to fool unit-ai responses with micro. SC2 with faster then fastest as standard will become an elitist game with a very small playerbase.
Nothing wrong with it implementing it as a fun setting though.
|
In WarCraft 2 Battle.Net Edition Blizz included the speed "fastest" as a joke, as it was roughly twice as fast as the speeds that were common before the days of battle.net. Unfortunately most new players picked up on it and ended up playing a twisted click-fest instead of the game that it was meant to be. It also contributed to the game's downfall by splitting the non-custom community into two factions, those who played the more strategic and microable "even faster" speed and the adrenaline driven fastest players. Not a welcome scenario, to be sure.
|
Its kind of like RA 2, although that game sucked, the fastest setting was insane, buildings and units were created so fast and moved so fast.... it was kind of fun haahah
|
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.
|
On May 03 2008 22:00 LaLuSh wrote:
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).
...
I find your style of arguing unnecessarily derrogatory and superior, i call it arrogant. You claim zam spoke too many overly basic arguments and then punish him for it by filling in the blanks with really narrow minded straw mans, and then proclaim with seemingly far too much certainty that those seem to be the only arguments there are to make. The amount of words you spend on inetellectual put-downs does much more to state your superiority than it does to actually create a better debate by simply constructively pointing out the perceived inadequecy of their method. And you seem the type who prefers to insist that your opponent's opinion is in no way understandably reasonable, when you could just state modestly that you think it doesn't make sense, which i find really annoying.
On topic, i really can't see anything wrong with the possibility of a slightly faster speed setting to balance off mbs and such on the ladder, though the game might not require that solution when it comes out. As i understand it sc2 is more micro-oriented now than bw, so speeding it up might just reverse that i guess?
|
|
|
Whoever really even has any interest in playing fastest++ is a big time nerd. If you really want that much speed go stare at a strobe light or somethin. The only thing faster game speeds rewards is repetition. Getting your brain used to the pace and nothing more, if you're a dumbass with no concept of strategy, you'll always be that way. I'm not for slowing the game down to the point of the one article's write wanted, but seriously quit being such nerds and find something to think about other than smashing keys on a keyboard or a mouse. I've switched between FPS and RTS one too many times and everytime I hear the term APM I can't help but think about how nerdy it is.
|
On May 03 2008 22:00 LaLuSh wrote:
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.
Actually I pulled the only thing you agreed with out of my ass as well, so you better just forget about agreeing with it.
|
wat i think is that before i get anymore apm my 105-135 apm would be like a 50 apm noob on that setting :/
|
On May 04 2008 06:16 Mergesort wrote:
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
Since you seem like a complete ass hat i'll respond. My post was simply stating that in SC there exists the ability to play at faster than fastest speeds. I then gave my review of how those ACTUALLY PLAYED GAMES WENT. I see nothing wrong with being an ass hat, and who has really tested SC2? This is a conceptual section of the forums? how many games of SC2 have you played? how many games of sc have you played on speed settings beyond fastest? how many times have you tried to click on objects that move nearly as fast as your mouse pointer? the question isn't macroing at increased speeds, it is microing. I was using splitting workers as an example of how much harder even selecting moving units is at these speeds. maybe take your head out of your ass, and try enjoying the world mkay?
|
Wow guys just stop overtheorycrafting. We have no idea exactly what impact UI/AI improvements will have. We have no idea how easy/hard the game would be with whatever different speed they set it to.
You never tried it, you have no idea! Stop over speculating!
When beta comes, they might add some 1.25x speed 1.5x speed maybe some 5x speed I don't know. But only then we'll try it and we'll be in position to judge it. We might find it too absurdly fast it's unplayable or we might find it actually feels better and more fun/competitive.
But how bad is it to just give it a chance? Just let them try different stuff and see how it goes. After we try it then we judge it.
|
On May 03 2008 20:14 Bash wrote:
In WarCraft 2 Battle.Net Edition Blizz included the speed "fastest" as a joke, as it was roughly twice as fast as the speeds that were common before the days of battle.net. Unfortunately most new players picked up on it and ended up playing a twisted click-fest instead of the game that it was meant to be. It also contributed to the game's downfall by splitting the non-custom community into two factions, those who played the more strategic and microable "even faster" speed and the adrenaline driven fastest players. Not a welcome scenario, to be sure.
Above other arguments, I'll agree with this. We don't need to break apart the gamers. I'll stand by my argument till the end of days that while BW's "fast" feels slow now, it still allowed several strats that are impossible in serious play at "fastest". Putting in a Fastest x 1.5 in SC2 would eliminate certain strats from the game from the get go... typically the timing or micro oriented strats. And yes, I think all the new gamers that would take over the scene in 2 to 3 years from SC2's release would only play on fastest X 1.5 (just like what happened with BW and apparently warcraft2 bnet).
|
I miss the old "Fast" ladders, back when the game first came out and they had some semblance of respectability. Honestly, I see no reason why the game couldn't be made slower than it is currently. Everyone benefits, and it's not like the pro players are going to be any less skilled at their game.
|
|
|
#$VTQERASFGAFAS ahhhhhh!!! AGGRRGGGHHQ#@ Q#$VQEEDF
AGRHRHGH !!!! AGGGHH!!!!!
+ Show Spoiler +AGWEVRQFAHSDFHASDHFASHFH!!!!!!!@#%!#$^!@#$... hahaha
|
SC2 had a "faster fastest" speeding setting, that will be what most people will be using. People who play for fun will play at that speed. We're use to "fastest" because that was the fastest speed that was offered at a time.
However, too fast might be hard for TV observers to follow. Watching SC1 VODs, it doesn't look too fast especially compared to playing it.
Blizzard will probably retain similar "fastest" speed for SC2.
|
As long as there is a solid competitive gaming community to follow and participate I will support whatever decisions they make for the game.
Let's just pray they make decisions that will draw a competitive gaming community, as opposed to simply cashing in off the starcraft name.
|
On May 07 2008 15:41 jeddus wrote:
As long as there is a solid competitive gaming community to follow and participate I will support whatever decisions they make for the game.
Let's just pray they make decisions that will draw a competitive gaming community, as opposed to simply cashing in off the starcraft name.
Though I want there to be a pro scene, my main concern is that the game be fun to play, not to watch. If it's fun and challenging, competiton will follow.
|
I say go the way they did for the old bw- "fastest" with "fast" for ladder but with bw's "fastest" being equivalent to sc2's "fast". 1.25% sounds perfect to me.
|
|
|
nice to see this idea caught on =)
I approve of the FFS -- faster fastest setting -campaign
And so should you! Being pro-FFS is the new fad after the MBS got so ridicilously outdated.
lololol
the reason FFS is good for the game is because it does two things: it allows for "fun play" - just for kicks games. the other thing it does is balance out the reduced clickage from MBS. people who WANT to have APM battles will still get to.
now this doesn't become a problem for tournaments and esports because they will have a standardized speed setting. (they won't just automatically go with the maximum speed setting. people aren't that retarded when it comes to tournaments.) so to the anti FFS folks who cite the reason for being too fast, that argument is now shot down because it is precisely that. TOO fast. i.e. not meant for actual gameplay, but just for fun.
it also adds flexibility to the game and like people said, a certain "spice"
flexibility, apm balancing out MBS, and for fun. where are the negative points? the negative points all seem to be avoidable, (unless you're retarded and can't standardize the speed setting, or assume everyone will not be able to, of course.)
|
On May 03 2008 13:47 UmmTheHobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2008 12:32 gwho wrote:On May 03 2008 12:16 UmmTheHobo wrote:I think Starcraft's Fastest speed is just perfect. Any faster would ruin it in my opinion. With super fast speed your APM will become so important that it will unbalance the game. i do think the fastest speed is the best setting. that's why i'm saying it should be crowned and coronated as "normal" in SC2. that perfect speed becomes the norm, and then you can go faster or slower from that point. and it will unbalance the game - that's the whole point. xp for APM freaks and for training. While I think it would be pretty crazy to play it casually sometimes, I don't really think it would help with APM. It wouldn't help for training because it would fuck up your sense of time in the game.
ah you are very correct in saying that it will mess up your timing sense. training for timing attacks and such will be impossible. the aspect of training i was referring to were things like raw APM training. also, if you saw the game more shortened, you could grasp it better in its entirety and get a sense of the flow, the periods, the relative duration of those "periods" (before terran push, tech harassment phase, late game massing phase, etc). yes, the training would be mainly for raw APM. there of course are other uses, and the people will discover those, but it would be wrong to say that FFS would be completely useless for training.
|
Haha, funny idea @ OP
Now with this you if you want to be a real "pro" you better play on fastestest.
Anyways, noone is going to play on anything faster than fastest.. except for fun.
|
if people who have a CAREER in starcraft can´t think/micro/macro perfectly (or even close to perfectly) at the current fastest speed, why is an even faster speed necessary?
good idea but not something i personally would like to be involved in, or eventually forced into
|
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.
|
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.
|
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).
|
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).
|
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.
|
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.
|
I think it's a Blizzard plot to make Jaedong invincible.
|
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.
|
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).
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
10387 Posts
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.
|
"Beta" version of faster than fastest lol:
+ Show Spoiler +
It probably wouldn't work out very good, considering how the spoiler works out
|
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.
|
it will never happen
people will choose one speed and everyone will play that speed , just like the original
|
i think having the sc1 fastest=sc2 normal makes a lot of sense. the fastest speed setting is the most frequently used setting and should be "normal".
|
If they implement this maybe tournaments will be played on a lower speed. That could be a fun change.
|
On September 26 2009 08:34 StarBrift wrote:
If they implement this maybe tournaments will be played on a lower speed. That could be a fun change. I remember back when SC ladder was played on fast. Most annoying thing ever
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/6859/fasterthanfastestlj2.jpg)
