|
On November 19 2008 08:38 CharlieMurphy wrote:
I don't like the idea of workers slowing down and getting visual changes, thats just gonna add more clutter to the game screen. We'll end up with every unit having little shit here and there and have unintelligible confusion like warcraft 3.
Crystal Alignment seems to solve the multitasking issue in a very simple, non intrusive method, that's also easy for spectators to see.
|
I like the positive, solution oriented spirit of the original post. The more we account for Blizzard's approach/philosophy, the better the chances our opinions will have an impact on the final game. Blizz believes they have a winning formula for SC2 (and I agree it's pretty good).
1) 5 tasks need to be done but you only have time for 3.
2) These tasks are split between macro and micro.
3) The more compelling these tasks are, the better the game.
The UI "improvements" removed some of the less compelling tasks but at the cost of #2. The tasks are now too lopsided on the side of micro. So the tricky part is coming up with the clever compelling tasks that make their formula work. This thread contains some great macro AMP sinks that would fix #2, but I doubt Blizz would use them. They would just be replacing one uninteresting task with another. I think those like Unentschieden are on the right track.
So say aligned mineral patches are like buildings (where remaining mineral count behaves like HP). Could this make the game more interesting? Possibly. Maybe a zerg response to a FE protoss could be to take the protoss' 2nd expansion. Zerg could mine some patches and destroy the others. So even though the zerg will lose the expansion it could still be worth it to force the protoss to take a more vulnerable expansion later.
It could make small raids on enemy expansions more attractive. The attack force may not be large enough to take out the CC/hatchery/nexus but going after mineral patches could make the raid worth the expense. Raids in general would have a more permanent impact on an opponents economy.
FrozenArbiter, is the distinction you are trying to make between active and passive related to #3?
|
I think something along these lines is the ideal compromise... An idea i've had previously is that automated worked have a slight delay before they start mining the first time (5sec) or something... Anything along those lines, that makes there a noticeable skill difference.
|
On November 19 2008 08:47 oki wrote:
I like the positive, solution oriented spirit of the original post. The more we account for Blizzard's approach/philosophy, the better the chances our opinions will have an impact on the final game. Blizz believes they have a winning formula for SC2 (and I agree it's pretty good).
1) 5 tasks need to be done but you only have time for 3.
2) These tasks are split between macro and micro.
3) The more compelling these tasks are, the better the game.
The UI "improvements" removed some of the less compelling tasks but at the cost of #2. The tasks are now too lopsided on the side of micro. So the tricky part is coming up with the clever compelling tasks that make their formula work. This thread contains some great macro AMP sinks that would fix #2, but I doubt Blizz would use them. They would just be replacing one uninteresting task with another. I think those like Unentschieden are on the right track.
So say aligned mineral patches are like buildings (where remaining mineral count behaves like HP). Could this make the game more interesting? Possibly. Maybe a zerg response to a FE protoss could be to take the protoss' 2nd expansion. Zerg could mine some patches and destroy the others. So even though the zerg will lose the expansion it could still be worth it to force the protoss to take a more vulnerable expansion later.
It could make small raids on enemy expansions more attractive. The attack force may not be large enough to take out the CC/hatchery/nexus but going after mineral patches could make the raid worth the expense. Raids in general would have a more permanent impact on an opponents economy.
FrozenArbiter, is the distinction you are trying to make between active and passive related to #3?
Being able to destroy minerals with an attack force, would alter the game play drastically and in a very negative manner. Being able to kill workers is definitely good enough.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
FrozenArbiter, is the distinction you are trying to make between active and passive related to #3?
Not really, although in my second point I covered that (ie there should be strategical value in the features as well).
By active I mean that, for instance, the idea in the original post, actively awards clicking with ingame buffs.
That's what I was trying to avoid with my suggestion on page 8, I wanted to include a strategy aspect (ie it should be a choice of WHEN and WHY you use it) and I wanted it to be something that you spend time managing (set them to the mode you want them to operate in).
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 19 2008 08:22 vsrooks wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2008 08:11 FrozenArbiter wrote:I think my idea does both, as you'll want to change the mining mode of your workers regularly, and it has to be done manually. Just stating my opinion, so no offense or anything. Your idea seems really intrusive to me and in my opinion will really complicate gameplay. It would also be harder for spectators to see. I also don't see it solving the multitasking issue very well. I don't see players indivudally selecting workers very often, I see players just putting groups of workers or all of them on hotkeys and changing their modes. It also seems silly to forfeit map control, so you can sit on one or two base longer. Extra minerals will allow players to expand faster, so they will have more crystals anyways, etc.. Just seems to me like there are easier/better and less intrusive ways to solve the multitasking issue.
Ok let's say the "standard" for early-midgame becomes the faster mine option (this seems likely), but by default they are set to normal. Now people will go back to their base regularly (perhaps almost as often as with manual mining) to make sure their new workers are set to the proper mode.
It is FAR less intrusive than forcing players to manually send workers to mine so they don't miss out on a speed bonus -_-
Also, the exact ratio for how many minerals you lose when "fast mining" can easily be tweaked, if 5:7 isn't enough then it can be made 5:10 or even more.
The level of obtrusion is the same/arguably less than any of the other mechanics suggested, and unlike all of them, there's choice (ultimately meaning strategy) involved, something which appeals to me and hopefully something that appeals to blizzard and "the masses" (the masses being casual players, game magazines, and hopefully serious players as well, as I consider myself one).
|
On November 19 2008 09:14 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +FrozenArbiter, is the distinction you are trying to make between active and passive related to #3? Not really, although in my second point I covered that (ie there should be strategical value in the features as well). By active I mean that, for instance, the idea in the original post, actively awards clicking with ingame buffs. That's what I was trying to avoid with my suggestion on page 8, I wanted to include a strategy aspect (ie it should be a choice of WHEN and WHY you use it) and I wanted it to be something that you spend time managing (set them to the mode you want them to operate in).
There doesn't seem to be any reason to not take advantage of faster mining though. It's always going to be better to take the faster minerals so you can gain map control and expand, etc.. Not to mention the advantage you would gain early game.
You could balance it by making the crystal run out a lot lot faster, but overall the idea is just too complex and doens't solve the issue well enough in my opinion.
|
On November 19 2008 09:29 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2008 08:22 vsrooks wrote:On November 19 2008 08:11 FrozenArbiter wrote:I think my idea does both, as you'll want to change the mining mode of your workers regularly, and it has to be done manually. Just stating my opinion, so no offense or anything. Your idea seems really intrusive to me and in my opinion will really complicate gameplay. It would also be harder for spectators to see. I also don't see it solving the multitasking issue very well. I don't see players indivudally selecting workers very often, I see players just putting groups of workers or all of them on hotkeys and changing their modes. It also seems silly to forfeit map control, so you can sit on one or two base longer. Extra minerals will allow players to expand faster, so they will have more crystals anyways, etc.. Just seems to me like there are easier/better and less intrusive ways to solve the multitasking issue. Ok let's say the "standard" for early-midgame becomes the faster mine option (this seems likely), but by default they are set to normal. Now people will go back to their base regularly (perhaps almost as often as with manual mining) to make sure their new workers are set to the proper mode. It is FAR less intrusive than forcing players to manually send workers to mine so they don't miss out on a speed bonus -_- Also, the exact ratio for how many minerals you lose when "fast mining" can easily be tweaked, if 5:2 isn't enough then it can be made 5:5 or 5:10.
It's definitely better than having workers stop or having to continually tell them to mine, but I'm not a fan of those ideas either. Also manually going to base to set the bonus only solves the lack of multitasking from automine.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Quoting the edit I made while you posted:
Also, the exact ratio for how many minerals you lose when "fast mining" can easily be tweaked, if 5:2 isn't enough then it can be made 5:5 or 5:10.
The level of obtrusion is the same/arguably less than any of the other mechanics suggested, and unlike all of them, there's choice (ultimately meaning strategy) involved, something which appeals to me and hopefully something that appeals to blizzard and "the masses" (the masses being casual players, game magazines, and hopefully serious players as well, as I consider myself one).Last edit: 2008-11-19 09:32:37
Secondly, I disagree - there IS going to be a time when you don't want it turned on - when you are already pulling in minerals faster than you can spend them. If you are sitting at 3 fully saturated bases and full unit supply, power/fast mining would be wasteful.
Further, if the penalty is made more severe, then you'd want to be much more selective with your switching.
It's really not very different from how manual mining works in SC - if you want to be maximally effective you'll instantly set every new worker (manually) to Power Mine, if you don't, you just set a few of them to the mode at once (which is less effective).
The same as you can either instantly send all new workers to mine (manually) in SC, or if you don't have the time, you send as many as you queued up, once you do have the time.
EDIT:
On November 19 2008 09:34 vsrooks wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2008 09:29 FrozenArbiter wrote:On November 19 2008 08:22 vsrooks wrote:On November 19 2008 08:11 FrozenArbiter wrote:I think my idea does both, as you'll want to change the mining mode of your workers regularly, and it has to be done manually. Just stating my opinion, so no offense or anything. Your idea seems really intrusive to me and in my opinion will really complicate gameplay. It would also be harder for spectators to see. I also don't see it solving the multitasking issue very well. I don't see players indivudally selecting workers very often, I see players just putting groups of workers or all of them on hotkeys and changing their modes. It also seems silly to forfeit map control, so you can sit on one or two base longer. Extra minerals will allow players to expand faster, so they will have more crystals anyways, etc.. Just seems to me like there are easier/better and less intrusive ways to solve the multitasking issue. Ok let's say the "standard" for early-midgame becomes the faster mine option (this seems likely), but by default they are set to normal. Now people will go back to their base regularly (perhaps almost as often as with manual mining) to make sure their new workers are set to the proper mode. It is FAR less intrusive than forcing players to manually send workers to mine so they don't miss out on a speed bonus -_- Also, the exact ratio for how many minerals you lose when "fast mining" can easily be tweaked, if 5:7 isn't enough then it can be made 5:10 or even more. EDIT: Messed up the numbers a bit, fixed it. It's definitely better than having workers stop or having to continually tell them to mine, but I'm not a fan of those ideas either. Also manually going to base to set the bonus only solves the lack of multitasking from automine.
But this thread is about automining, so why would it solve anything else :X?
And if you are not in favour of any of these ideas, then what are you in favour of? Unadultered automine? No automine? EntSC's idea?
While on the topic of EntSC's idea, I'm not a big fan - there's no reason why you would NOT align the minerals, so no choice, and no strategy - just mindless clicking.
It's not really an active reward (which is good that isn't), but it's still clicking for the sake of clicking.
EDIT: Actually it IS sort of active in that it punishes those who do not adhere to the mechanic by degrading the efficiency of mineral collection IN GAME. As in, the game makes you mine less through a gameplay mechanic.
|
On November 19 2008 09:12 vsrooks wrote:
Being able to destroy minerals with an attack force, would alter the game play drastically and in a very negative manner. Being able to kill workers is definitely good enough.
But remember, Unentschieden suggested this as an amendment to EntSC's alignment idea. He was looking at a way to make the choice interesting. By choosing to make your expansion more efficient you are also choosing to make it more vulnerable. You have control over whether or not your opponent can attach your minerals. Maybe a cautious person like you doesn't align any of their minerals. But I suspect for most people it would vary from expansion to expansion depending on how protected they are.
|
The entire reason automine needs to be 'solved' is that Sc2 lacks multi tasking, there's nothing necessarily wrong with automining outside of it taking away the need to multitask.
I also don't see your solution brining in a lot of diversity in real-time choices. The only time you wouldn't want more minerals would be if you're maxed, which doesn't last long, which also doesn't add any choice or strategy. If you increase how quickly the mineral rates will disappear, players will only use it for all in strats/grabbing a FE/etc. It could possibly add some diversity to how build orders are executed, but that's about all.
As far as a your mechanic increasing choices available in the game, I can't argue the fact that it would potentially add some changes; however, there are all kinds of new mechanics that could potentially increase depth to the game. The issue that I percieved at hand was solving the lack of multi tasking required in the game. Your solution doesn't seem to do that so much as increase 'game depth'.
I feel that EntSC's idea solves the multitasking issue the best, while keeping things simple. It would be really easy to regulate, very spectator friendly, and I don't see casual players getting too upset over it.
If we're looking at ways to change the gameflow/depth of Sc2, then your idea and other worker ability suggestions would obviously be more suited for that. There are also a lot of other ideas we could come up with to increase 'game depth' as well as add a few more necessary clicks during a game.
The previous points also apply to Oki's statement. If minerals would respawn after a period of time after being 'destoryed' that could work. If you didn't want your minerals to be aligned for safety reasons, that would also take away multi tasking for that player as well, because they wouldn't have the task of aligning their minerals, etc.. It seems more like a change to game depth than to solve the multi task issue.
Edit: Sorry if I seem hostile, I'm not trying to be. I also think you brought up a lot of good points and ideas and with some editing it could definitely work in the game. However, like I said.. it just doesn't seem to solve the multitasking issue so much as it adds more depth to the game.
|
On November 19 2008 09:14 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +FrozenArbiter, is the distinction you are trying to make between active and passive related to #3? Not really, although in my second point I covered that (ie there should be strategical value in the features as well). By active I mean that, for instance, the idea in the original post, actively awards clicking with ingame buffs. That's what I was trying to avoid with my suggestion on page 8, I wanted to include a strategy aspect (ie it should be a choice of WHEN and WHY you use it) and I wanted it to be something that you spend time managing (set them to the mode you want them to operate in).
Ah, I think I understand. The word I chose, "compelling", is probably too vague and generic. I feel tasks that involve strategic choice are more compelling.
|
Maybe I'm alone, but I don't think they're going to try any overly complex solution a fan site proposes. From what I've seen, the only thing they've ever done based on fan sites is nix their own ideas, and replace them with different ideas of their own. Whether it's because of legal reasons, or just because they're pretty stubborn about their own ideas (most likely the latter) I don't know.
The only possible routes I see are them removing their feature, allowing it to be toggled, or letting the community sort it out with mods. Again, I think the last is most likely. Although I don't think it's unhealthy to discuss whatever crazy ideas you have, I agree with Tasteless and think you should prepare yourself for it to be Blizzard's way at release, and hopefully mods will work it out if they only release one version.
***
The thing that bothers me the most is that the purpose of so much of the automation is to make the game accessible to the new player, whereas most of it will only affect like 5% of newbs. Newbs don't use hotkeys, so they don't need mbs. Newbs don't remember to MAKE workers, so they don't need automine. Newbs are already staring at the battle and their army the whole time they are engaged, so they don't need autosurround. The players that the features will affect are the regular players: maybe 25-50% of BGH-type regulars, and then 90%+ of regular/competitive low-money 1v1 players. There is no problem with the game at that level. They're all already hooked, and already buying sc2 regardless. All it will do is close the gaps in competitive play, so D+ iccupers can play like current B- players, etc. I really think the only hope we have for features like this to get out of the game is for Blizzard to think for 10 seconds and realize that most of them WON'T make the game more accessible to new players, but WILL make it more frustrating for regulars and WILL seriously hurt the competitive nature of the game. Attract the new players with flashy graphics, cinematics, campaign, and toggle-able extended death/firing animations. Don't ruin the game for regulars with stupid ideas that won't even draw any new players.
|
On November 19 2008 11:26 LonelyMargarita wrote:
The thing that bothers me the most is that the purpose of so much of the automation is to make the game accessible to the new player, whereas most of it will only affect like 5% of newbs. Newbs don't use hotkeys, so they don't need mbs. Newbs don't remember to MAKE workers, so they don't need automine. Newbs are already staring at the battle and their army the whole time they are engaged, so they don't need autosurround. The players that the features will affect are the regular players: maybe 25-50% of BGH-type regulars, and then 90%+ of regular/competitive low-money 1v1 players. There is no problem with the game at that level. They're all already hooked, and already buying sc2 regardless. All it will do is close the gaps in competitive play, so D+ iccupers can play like current B- players, etc. I really think the only hope we have for features like this to get out of the game is for Blizzard to think for 10 seconds and realize that most of them WON'T make the game more accessible to new players, but WILL make it more frustrating for regulars and WILL seriously hurt the competitive nature of the game. Attract the new players with flashy graphics, cinematics, campaign, and toggle-able extended death/firing animations. Don't ruin the game for regulars with stupid ideas that won't even draw any new players.
I couldn't agree more and no matter what Blizz decides, I really hope people realize this. The only people complaining about MBS are players that want to be the best or close to the best without having a high APM(AKA practice). The only reason to want these features is to make the game easier.
The concept of people being incapable of having a high APM is ridiculous.. all it takes is dedication and practice. Boxer is 28 and a professional gamer, BaBy is like 14 or something(not sure exactly).
|
On November 19 2008 11:26 LonelyMargarita wrote:
The thing that bothers me the most is that the purpose of so much of the automation is to make the game accessible to the new player, whereas most of it will only affect like 5% of newbs. Newbs don't use hotkeys, so they don't need mbs. Newbs don't remember to MAKE workers, so they don't need automine. Newbs are already staring at the battle and their army the whole time they are engaged, so they don't need autosurround. The players that the features will affect are the regular players: maybe 25-50% of BGH-type regulars, and then 90%+ of regular/competitive low-money 1v1 players. There is no problem with the game at that level. They're all already hooked, and already buying sc2 regardless. All it will do is close the gaps in competitive play, so D+ iccupers can play like current B- players, etc. I really think the only hope we have for features like this to get out of the game is for Blizzard to think for 10 seconds and realize that most of them WON'T make the game more accessible to new players, but WILL make it more frustrating for regulars and WILL seriously hurt the competitive nature of the game. Attract the new players with flashy graphics, cinematics, campaign, and toggle-able extended death/firing animations. Don't ruin the game for regulars with stupid ideas that won't even draw any new players.
Yeah I totally agree.
It's really frutstrating because Chris Sigaty doesn't seem to realize that he might convince his wife/mom to play it once or twice, but no matter how easy he makes it they're not going to continue playing it and get hooked.
|
Sorry, it's 4 am here and I'm too tired to read all of the discussion but reading the first post leads me to believe this is another automine/mbs/whatever = non-competetive etc. etc. bullshit.
I know it has been discussed a bazillion times before but mechanics =/= skill.
RTS games are all about strategy and THINKING (not clicking faster than the other person).
I suppose that Blizzard and most of the creators look at this game from a perspective of an adult person without much experience in the matter (perhaps some casual gaming, SP campaign etc.) and might not share your view on it (as I'm growing older and older I tend to do the same).
A good example of how this is percieved could be a very short article about the new documentary about the WC3 pro-scene which is quite a good read and hits the spot.
http://weblogs.hollanddoc.nl/beyondthegame/2008/11/10/kasparovs-of-a-new-generation/#more-66
The problem is:
Some people (hardcore fans) want to see the gamers perform tasks with inhuman speed by creating units/building etc. etc. while still microing heavily during the battles.
What I want to see is someone using a brilliant/unseen/unexpected strategy to overcome his oponent, not faster hand.
Fast hands don't go well with psychology/mindgames which make most part of warfare and games of all types so thrilling.
And most of all, you should not fear mbs/automine/whatever scares you in SC2, let the people play, adapt, develop new strategies and so on.
What you really want is diversification of players right from the start which is really bad.
What should be done (and it seems it will) is give more or less even chances for everyone at start and see who can come out on top.
Who said current SC pros should be SC2 pros right away?
Edit (I've read some of the posts):
Why do you think automine would affect pros in any way? Creating new workers and sending them to mine is (I believe so) so natural to them they don't even really notice it much. So including automine is just a minor convenience for them (might be major since now they have free apm to micro their units) but huge thing for a newbie. It will not decrease the skill gap at all, newbies will still be newbies (but will be more happy about interface being more friendly to them) and pros will be pros.
Seriously, most of the win-factor lies in game-knowledge/experience. Most of the people who play SC do not know when to stop your goons to fire while moving (I'm referring to fire, move, stop, fire, repeat) in efficient enough way to make it an effective strategy. Hell, most people don't even know you can move/fire....
And what about map knowledge? Knowing that 1 tank is enough in this spot instead of 2 to stop the enemy makes a difference... Knowing when/where/how to expand makes a HUGE difference...
You tend to overestimate the mechanics of the game. It's not just numbers you know...
|
10387 Posts
you can only take the strategy so far...
|
On November 19 2008 12:22 Manit0u wrote:
Sorry, it's 4 am here and I'm too tired to read all of the discussion but reading the first post leads me to believe this is another automine/mbs/whatever = non-competetive etc. etc. bullshit.
I know it has been discussed a bazillion times before but mechanics =/= skill.
RTS games are all about strategy and THINKING (not clicking faster than the other person).
No. TURN BASED strategy games are about strategy and thinking. REAL TIME strategy games are about strategy and thinking AND BEING FAST. If you don't want a game that rewards people for being fast, I suggest you play turn based strategy games, not Starcraft or Starcraft 2. It's that way in real sports too: if you want a sport where you have to ski fast and shoot accurately to win, you enter the biathlon. If you can't ski, but enjoy the shooting aspect, you just enter the rifle events. Please do not attempt to use that argument again.
|
How far? There is no extent as to where you can bring your strategy to.
You call yourself an SC fan?
Britney Spears' fans survived her cutting her hair, private life problems etc. and still love her.
You won't love SC2 no matter what it is?
|
On November 19 2008 12:22 Manit0u wrote:Sorry, it's 4 am here and I'm too tired to read all of the discussion but reading the first post leads me to believe this is another automine/mbs/whatever = non-competetive etc. etc. bullshit. I know it has been discussed a bazillion times before but mechanics =/= skill. RTS games are all about strategy and THINKING (not clicking faster than the other person). I suppose that Blizzard and most of the creators look at this game from a perspective of an adult person without much experience in the matter (perhaps some casual gaming, SP campaign etc.) and might not share your view on it (as I'm growing older and older I tend to do the same). A good example of how this is percieved could be a very short article about the new documentary about the WC3 pro-scene which is quite a good read and hits the spot. http://weblogs.hollanddoc.nl/beyondthegame/2008/11/10/kasparovs-of-a-new-generation/#more-66The problem is: Some people (hardcore fans) want to see the gamers perform tasks with inhuman speed by creating units/building etc. etc. while still microing heavily during the battles. What I want to see is someone using a brilliant/unseen/unexpected strategy to overcome his oponent, not faster hand. Fast hands don't go well with psychology/mindgames which make most part of warfare and games of all types so thrilling. And most of all, you should not fear mbs/automine/whatever scares you in SC2, let the people play, adapt, develop new strategies and so on. What you really want is diversification of players right from the start which is really bad. What should be done (and it seems it will) is give more or less even chances for everyone at start and see who can come out on top. Who said current SC pros should be SC2 pros right away? Edit (I've read some of the posts): Why do you think automine would affect pros in any way? Creating new workers and sending them to mine is (I believe so) so natural to them they don't even really notice it much. So including automine is just a minor convenience for them (might be major since now they have free apm to micro their units) but huge thing for a newbie. It will not decrease the skill gap at all, newbies will still be newbies (but will be more happy about interface being more friendly to them) and pros will be pros. Seriously, most of the win-factor lies in game-knowledge/experience. Most of the people who play SC do not know when to stop your goons to fire while moving (I'm referring to fire, move, stop, fire, repeat) in efficient enough way to make it an effective strategy. Hell, most people don't even know you can move/fire.... And what about map knowledge? Knowing that 1 tank is enough in this spot instead of 2 to stop the enemy makes a difference... Knowing when/where/how to expand makes a HUGE difference... You tend to overestimate the mechanics of the game. It's not just numbers you know...
In my opinion intelligence and smart play is rewarded a lot more with difficult mechanics.
Example:
With MBS/Automine:
Players have 5 seconds to make a decision.
Players A reaches it in 2 seconds.
Player B reaches it in 4 seconds.
They both perform the required movement/action in time and are able to execute.
Without MBS/Automine:
Players have 3 seconds to make a decision.
Player A executes.
Player B loses.
It's obviously more complex than that, but the smarter player will be able to make decisions faster than the slower player, they'll also be able to think farther ahead. The more actions you give players to think about, the less time they have to think about each action, which is more beneficial for the more intelligent player.
As far as smart players not being able to win games, because the actions will be too difficult to accomplish is a false assumption. Being able to do all of the actions in a game and click things quickly is accomplished through practice. Anyone is capable of doing it, they just need to be dedicated enough.
The cool thing about difficult mechanics as well is that sometimes the less intelligent player will be able to overcome a smarter player through determination and practice. Practice is something that I think should always be rewarded as well as intelligence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
