|
On June 25 2008 07:11 Centric wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2008 04:35 VIB wrote:On June 25 2008 00:09 Luddite wrote:
They are programmers, not progamers. Plus, I'm sure they'd be flamed to death if they did actually remove MBS- remember that those of us opposed to MBS are in the minority here against a sea of noobs. Why do people keep saying this implying that progamers and against MBS and only noobs like it? Anyone got a link of any interview actually stating that? Because the few korean progamers interviews that I did read, every single one of them had a "I don't care - makes little difference - let's wait for beta and see" stance on MBS. It has always seemed to me that it's only the C- TL.net players who got addicted to the subject and wanna show off how good they are opposed to the D- noobs who wants an easier game. But the progamers themselves who you often cite could care less about MBS. Why are you guys so addicted to it? Why not just wait to beta? Korean progamers haven't really said anything about it, but I'm thinking that may just be good manners and respect.
So essentially your saying: "No progamer has said anything bad against MBS, but I am sure that they are still against it."
:\
Whats to keep someone else from saying: "No progamer has spoken about MBS, but I sm sure that they are all for it."?
I wish everyone would just speak for themselves and not for others.
|
On June 25 2008 08:28 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
Another thing to think about: if SC2 has the exact same mechanics as SC (what many here would probably prefer), it will automatically be P>Z>T once again (once the game is "perfectly balanced" as BW is) in the non-progamer scene.
This is simply because of the lower mechanical demands Protoss has (fewer units, longer build times, etc.).
This should be addressed so that the races can be "balanced" not only for progamers but for casual gamers up to "foreigner gosus" too.
Generally, they should make T and Z as easy to play (mechanically) as P (mechanically), or P harder.
They should at least add MUS (multiple unit selection, with a limit far higher than 12) because it's just really annoying for Zergs below progamer level to deal with all those lings and whatnot in late game. Again, advantage for P because of fewer units.
Now you've said it all.
P>Z>T, WTF??????
At least look for race statistics, which are pretty much the same, with Zerg being abble to more easily kill Protoss, not terran!
@ to the guy suggesting toggable MBS that's pure crap.
A)Everyone will use it and those not using it will obviously be in an disadvantage, while the problem of easier game and less macro remains! Do you even think?
|
On June 25 2008 01:12 jellyfish wrote:
what maybenexttime is saying is different from mbs. his version of mbs wouldn't allow using mbs to make units, only "mass rally, focus firing with defensive structures, etc." Thus it's a nice compromise between the two.
I don't think that some sort of gimped version of MBS is the answer. I think that would just piss off everyone.
On June 25 2008 01:12 jellyfish wrote:
luddite, your number two seems like it would be more of a map-based change rather than anything else. So perhaps we ought to test making gameplay more expo driven by making low $ patch, high expo maps now? Oh and it just struck me that perhaps this change would help zerg most, terran some, and hurt toss. Zerg gets increasing numbers of hatches as the game progresses anyway, at least in current sc. Terran can just lift off buildings, thus saving money. Toss has to build useless nexuses everywhere just to keep up, then.
Yeah as you say if you did this in BW it would really help zerg waaay too much. Terran can't defend that many expos and protoss can't afford to keep building nexuses.
On June 25 2008 01:12 jellyfish wrote:
And number three seems like a good idea. As you said, strategic options open up and reward apm/skill; it also gives blizzard another chance to make the races unique by giving each race unique terrain abilities. But I wonder how they will fare in terms of visibility. IMO sc2 graphics are dazzling enough already, and I don't want to be even more confused by lots of random terrain doodads everywhere.
I have faith in their graphics team, at least.
|
On June 25 2008 01:36 Plexa wrote:
personally i think that the warpgate system (which is often forgotten) is a good step in the right direction
warpgates cannot warp in by MBS last i heard, and had to manually select where to warp in each unit from the warpgate
benefit of warpgates is that there is a reduced build time therefore the player who uses this system will have more units than the player who cannot use the warpgates
Hmm OK I wasn't aware that warpgates worked like that. That is a good idea. I'm very surprised that they can't warp in by MBS though- I wonder why not.
|
On June 25 2008 02:47 Ryot wrote:
Anyways, something I liked that another RTS did (a really old one, I think Dune 2000 or something?) is that it allowed workers to build cheap walls. It was just a thin divider that units couldn't pass on ground, but they could attack it. Using this, one could create different choke points in their base, or set up interesting advanced positions, etc. The walls took a while to build though, every section was small so you really had to manage the construction process well.
I like the walls idea. They had that in Total Annihilation, and it was pretty fun. Actually war2 had walls also, although as i recall they were pretty useless.
On June 25 2008 02:47 Ryot wrote:
For increasing the micro... I think they just need to bring back some of the units from BW which really allowed players to look like geniuses. For example: medics, vultures, reavers. All lead to intense micro encounters which not only required skill, but were very exciting to watch (double bonus). I look at the replacement units for SC2 and they don't really seem that exciting, despite having good concept art (a novelty which wears off pretty quickly).
I'm not too worried about a lack of micro. I think there's plenty of stuff in the game already that will require lots of micro (stalkers for example) and it's very easy from them to just add new special abilities to units if there's not enough micro.
|
On June 25 2008 04:27 Plexa wrote:
To essentially repeat myself...
Zerg = Same as Sc1
Protoss = Warpgates (main productive facility) option of using lesser gateways if you suck
(MBS on stargates who cares? you build like 6 carriers at a time anyway)
Terran = ??? <-- needs something here
imo its not that big of an issue for any race but terran
There's still the issue of automine, though. That will make macro a lot easier, too.
|
On June 25 2008 04:35 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2008 00:09 Luddite wrote:
They are programmers, not progamers. Plus, I'm sure they'd be flamed to death if they did actually remove MBS- remember that those of us opposed to MBS are in the minority here against a sea of noobs. Why do people keep saying this implying that progamers and against MBS and only noobs like it? Anyone got a link of any interview actually stating that? Because the few korean progamers interviews that I did read, every single one of them had a "I don't care - makes little difference - let's wait for beta and see" stance on MBS. It has always seemed to me that it's only the C- TL.net players who got addicted to the subject and wanna show off how good they are opposed to the D- noobs who wants an easier game. But the progamers themselves who you often cite could care less about MBS. Why are you guys so addicted to it? Why not just wait to beta?
To be honest it would have been more accurate to just say that people who play a lot are against MBS. I don't have any hard data, but it's really obvious from any MBS debate that the more someone plays, the more likely they are to be against MBS. It's almost a direct correlation. I don't know what the real pro gamers said, but I do know that it would be considered extremely bad manner in Korea for someone as young as them to publicly criticize the game.
On June 25 2008 04:35 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2008 00:09 Luddite wrote:
1)Build more buildings! Increase unit build times, decrease building sizes and costs. Add more tech buildings also. This would force you to spend a lot of time at your base, making buildings.
2)Reduce the number of minerals in most patches, and make a lot of expansion sites on the map. Force players to be constantly expanding, much more so than in BW.
3)Interactive terrain! One of the things that I really like about SC2 is the way the terrain looks. Make it so that workers can build ramps, dig trenches, dam rivers, and push over rocks. This would both open a lot of strategic options, AND it would force you to be constantly controlling your workers to shape the terrain the way you want it.
All off these 1 to 3 can be made by mapping. You can make it yourself if you feel you need it.
Well I want something that's included in competitive melee games, not just crappy UMS games. And the game needs to be balanced with the macro system in place.
|
On June 25 2008 08:32 Yank31 wrote:
Isn't it T>P>Z at high level?
More like T>P<Z at high level. But only slightly, it's very balanced. This is because Terran is rewarded for better mechanics much more than Protoss, and the same with Zerg but not as much as Terran. And we all know how good the Koreans are with mechanics.
Plus, (I'm referring to that huge long post), you can't put artificial limitations on things. This will only make the game more complex and make people angry and wondering why there are such limitations. If you're making the units build slower, it's going to take more coding, as well as being pointless. If it's a small variable like 0.5 seconds - 5 seconds, the time it takes you to select every single building one by one to make units will be equal or greater to the delay you'll get from your "penalty". Slapping on a penalty for MBS is pointless, and will only decrease sales and general player happiness because of artificial limitations that the casual gamer will find extremely irritating.
The auto mining system is when you put a rally point on the mineral itself. The workers don't tell themselves to mine gas, you just put a rally point on the mineral patch and when they are built they will head to mine. The worker AI is very smart now and will choose the next open patch to be more efficient - why would you waste all that coding to make them "dumb"? This will only open up more reasons for reviewers and casual customers / gamers to get angry at Blizzard. Another pointless artificial limitation.
You are thinking of all these limitations that come with MBS. But face it, MBS is here to stay, and you can't just try and dumb it down and punish those who use MBS. That would be like saying if you have 10 high templar and you storm very quickly, they will wait until the last storm is finished before storming, because storm is imba. ??? It doesn't make any sense! Imagine how 'penalizing' players for doing certain things will affect the way a normal player will think of the game. Especially if they carry over to UMS. Artificial limitations are NOT the solution here.
To the op, I like the 3rd example but it would have to go through extensive testing to find out ways to make it balanced. It would add a cool strategical tactic, however.
|
On June 25 2008 12:22 Luddite wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2008 04:35 VIB wrote:On June 25 2008 00:09 Luddite wrote:
1)Build more buildings! Increase unit build times, decrease building sizes and costs. Add more tech buildings also. This would force you to spend a lot of time at your base, making buildings.
2)Reduce the number of minerals in most patches, and make a lot of expansion sites on the map. Force players to be constantly expanding, much more so than in BW.
3)Interactive terrain! One of the things that I really like about SC2 is the way the terrain looks. Make it so that workers can build ramps, dig trenches, dam rivers, and push over rocks. This would both open a lot of strategic options, AND it would force you to be constantly controlling your workers to shape the terrain the way you want it.
All off these 1 to 3 can be made by mapping. You can make it yourself if you feel you need it. Well I want something that's included in competitive melee games, not just crappy UMS games. And the game needs to be balanced with the macro system in place.
2) can be done in melee games (and actually a good idea, I like it). And all korean leagues are played in observer mode in "crappy UMS games". The point is, there is enough tools with mapping to enforce macro-heavy games. I guarantee to you, mr. Luddite, that if Kespa for whatever reason ever believes the games need more macro, they'll fix it making macro maps.
I still don't understand why you guys just don't chill out and wait for beta >< No matter how good and logical your anti-mbs arguments are. Those arguments will never be as strong as the fact that you just can't be sure until you try it yourself!
|
All these ideas about adding bizarre, non-intuitive tasks isn't something that shouldn't be in a game. In SC1, there a ton of tasks that need to be accomplished but they're all logical. "I need SCVs, so I click the command center and hit S and they get made."
To put MBS into SC2 and then throw in a bunch of weird time delays that are completely artificial is just confusing. Now it's "I need SCVs, but for a reason I can't comprehend I need to avoid random production time penalties."
|
On June 25 2008 09:56 Savio1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2008 07:11 Centric wrote:On June 25 2008 04:35 VIB wrote:On June 25 2008 00:09 Luddite wrote:
They are programmers, not progamers. Plus, I'm sure they'd be flamed to death if they did actually remove MBS- remember that those of us opposed to MBS are in the minority here against a sea of noobs. Why do people keep saying this implying that progamers and against MBS and only noobs like it? Anyone got a link of any interview actually stating that? Because the few korean progamers interviews that I did read, every single one of them had a "I don't care - makes little difference - let's wait for beta and see" stance on MBS. It has always seemed to me that it's only the C- TL.net players who got addicted to the subject and wanna show off how good they are opposed to the D- noobs who wants an easier game. But the progamers themselves who you often cite could care less about MBS. Why are you guys so addicted to it? Why not just wait to beta? Korean progamers haven't really said anything about it, but I'm thinking that may just be good manners and respect. So essentially your saying: "No progamer has said anything bad against MBS, but I am sure that they are still against it." :\ Whats to keep someone else from saying: "No progamer has spoken about MBS, but I sm sure that they are all for it."? I wish everyone would just speak for themselves and not for others.
the progamers are against it, this has been discussed before. just about anyone who understands the game on a competitive level is against it.
|
On June 25 2008 15:27 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2008 12:22 Luddite wrote:On June 25 2008 04:35 VIB wrote:On June 25 2008 00:09 Luddite wrote:
1)Build more buildings! Increase unit build times, decrease building sizes and costs. Add more tech buildings also. This would force you to spend a lot of time at your base, making buildings.
2)Reduce the number of minerals in most patches, and make a lot of expansion sites on the map. Force players to be constantly expanding, much more so than in BW.
3)Interactive terrain! One of the things that I really like about SC2 is the way the terrain looks. Make it so that workers can build ramps, dig trenches, dam rivers, and push over rocks. This would both open a lot of strategic options, AND it would force you to be constantly controlling your workers to shape the terrain the way you want it.
All off these 1 to 3 can be made by mapping. You can make it yourself if you feel you need it. Well I want something that's included in competitive melee games, not just crappy UMS games. And the game needs to be balanced with the macro system in place. 2) can be done in melee games (and actually a good idea, I like it). And all korean leagues are played in observer mode in "crappy UMS games". The point is, there is enough tools with mapping to enforce macro-heavy games. I guarantee to you, mr. Luddite, that if Kespa for whatever reason ever believes the games need more macro, they'll fix it making macro maps. I still don't understand why you guys just don't chill out and wait for beta >< No matter how good and logical your anti-mbs arguments are. Those arguments will never be as strong as the fact that you just can't be sure until you try it yourself!
Yes I realize that they play with UMS, but it's still the same game as melee mode. The game was specifically balanced for the rules of melee mode, so you can't say "oh just play with different rules".
And the reason we don't want to wait for beta is that it will probably be too late by that point. The beta test is for balancing and fixing bugs, not for adding completely new parts to the game play.
|
On June 25 2008 09:52 Savio1 wrote:Speaking about anti-MBS: Show nested quote +[B]
On a sidenote, we're not really in a minority. Casual players WHO CARE about such things as MBS are actually rare. The problem could be ignorant reviewers like e.g. Dan... I'm not saying what my opinion of MBS is, but you're off on this. Poll at SC2 armory has 92% in favor of MBS and 8% against with 380 votes in. Not a scientific poll but it is probably more accurate than just thinking......"well I bet there are more people in favor of MBS". Unless your definition of "WHO CARE" is something like "who agree with me". Then you can come up with any number you want.
Wow, nice, but you'd get ten times as much people voting on either TL or GosuGamers.net with great majority against MBS. How does that poll prove anything?
What I'm saying is that the VAST majority of casual players will buy the game REGARDLESS. They do not care about MBS, they do not post on online forums, don't argue about such issues. Only several hundred out of millions casual players do care about whether MBS will be in the game. That's few compared to how many competitive players who do care there are...
|
On June 25 2008 12:12 Luddite wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2008 01:36 Plexa wrote:
personally i think that the warpgate system (which is often forgotten) is a good step in the right direction
warpgates cannot warp in by MBS last i heard, and had to manually select where to warp in each unit from the warpgate
benefit of warpgates is that there is a reduced build time therefore the player who uses this system will have more units than the player who cannot use the warpgates Hmm OK I wasn't aware that warpgates worked like that. That is a good idea. I'm very surprised that they can't warp in by MBS though- I wonder why not.
You can select multiple Warp Gates, but you need to select a separate location for every unit you warp in.
|
The case here seems to be that many of you think that "casual players" dont care if there is MBS or not in the game. I assure you that this is definitely not the case. Majority of the casual players who buy SC2 have played other modern RTSs and they demand for a more accessible and improved UI with automining and MBS. They want a better game and I believe that a lot of UI improvements are called for to make SC2 a better "game"(even tough it takes away a lot of the skill). I'm pretty sure that many mediums will bash SC2 alot if it lacks MBS and automining and other UI features that are in other RTSs out there right now. Even tough Blizzard values its hardcore fans, they don't want their game to be labeled as a dated update by the majority of buyers (and media) and therefore automing and MBS and other UI changes that make the game easier WILL be implemented. It's inevitable.
And before flaming ensues, I myself acknowledge the fact that implenting such changes into the game takes away a lot of it's competetiveness and diminishes the skill needed to be successfull. The challenge here for Blizzard is to add new factors that'll require skill and separate the pros from noobs.
Hmh, I hope that I just didn't repeat everything that has been already said in this thread.
|
Last time I checked, you couldn't select multiple buildings in CNC3 (well, you can, but you've gotta add a hotkeyed structure to an already selected one, and you can't use rally points or produce from those structures via hotkeys anyway). Yet, I didn't see literally ANYONE complaining about that, not even casual players... Was CNC3 labeled as 'dated' by reviewers? Were they complaining about the UI? No, they didn't even notice it's missing, and neither did the reviewers...
What exactly makes you think they do care about such things in SC2? They care about singleplayer, lore, and stuff like that. Only a small fraction of them actually ever goes to the Battle.net, and even fewer post on online forums, much less complain about such things...
Also those simplifications are not being introduced to make SC2 a better game. They're supposed to make it EASIER, just that.
Reviews:
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/command-conquer-3-tiberium-wars/777472p1.html
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/commandconquer3/review.html?tag=tabs;reviews&page=2
http://pc.ign.com/articles/777/777178p2.html
|
Protoss has warpgates for "macro"
Terran gives you "macro" options through the add-ons.
Zerg is pretty much the same (you "MBS" the larva).
|
On June 25 2008 22:07 lolaloc wrote:
Protoss has warpgates for "macro"
Terran gives you "macro" options through the add-ons.
Zerg is pretty much the same (you "MBS" the larva).
Add-on don't change anything. They won't keep you as busy as SBS-macro, it's not even close...
|
In fact yes, I think CNC3 was dated when it comes to UI. And I really heard criticism about it, many reviews cited that the game felt essentially the same as older cnc games (but still managed to improve the series).
And when I say "modern RTS" I don't mean just CNC3. Even Warcraft 3 had MBS and the versatility and awesomeness of Supreme Commander UI is unrivalled. And while saying that "making things easier isn't making the game better" you might be right to a certain point. Supreme Commander was such an awesome game because the UI was just that good. You could automate a lot of actions and you had supreme control of the battlefield and this was one of the main points that made the game so good and acclaimed by critics. So in conclusion, by making things easier to control and giving more options the game got better.
What I'm trying to say is that Blizzard has 2 audiences to satisfy. By excluding MBS, automining and such they are making the game more competitive and satisfying the HC gamers who want the game to be as hard as SC1 was. But at the same time they are doing a disservice to ppl who want to play for fun and who don't have 3593495 apm to select every worker separately.
|
On June 25 2008 12:12 Luddite wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2008 01:36 Plexa wrote:
personally i think that the warpgate system (which is often forgotten) is a good step in the right direction
warpgates cannot warp in by MBS last i heard, and had to manually select where to warp in each unit from the warpgate
benefit of warpgates is that there is a reduced build time therefore the player who uses this system will have more units than the player who cannot use the warpgates Hmm OK I wasn't aware that warpgates worked like that. That is a good idea. I'm very surprised that they can't warp in by MBS though- I wonder why not.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to videos I saw this is because even if you select all the warp gates with MBS you still have to click on a spot for them to warp to, you can't simply click on one spot and then have everything appear there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
