On November 19 2008 12:49 Manit0u wrote: 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?
Read my other post for my true explanation on why I feel Sc2 will hurt gameplay.
Just to counter act the limit to strategy statement:
Example: Grubby(Wc3 player) He used to be able to beat players by outsmarting them, but eventually everyone caught up to him strategy wise and so it's a lot harder for him to win games. He said this in an interview with MYM I believe.
On November 19 2008 12:49 Manit0u wrote: 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?
If you want them to make SC2 a turn based strategy game, please create a thread about it.
If you wish to discuss turn-based games and why to some people RTS games seem to lack strategy after a couple years, make a thread about that (in games forum). I have knowledge and opinions on this and could address them in that forum or in a blog if you really don't understand.
This thread is about the automine feature, and ways to address the problems it creates. Please stay on topic, and please other people ignore those that do not stay on the topic of this thread, so we can keep it on track.
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.
I completely agree with you here.
But seriously, whining about something that hasn't been really tested/sent out to the masses and checked out in practice instead of theory is extremely hypocrytic, don't you think?
I would understand if people whined about mbs/automine/whatever being imbalanced after several months of extensively practicing it. I would also understand if they whined about it affecting the pro scene if they were part of it and fulfilled the above statement.
But right now? Complaining about something that is still in alpha phase and haven't really been put into test?
Show me ONE post/blog where a current SC pro-gamer complains about SC2 interface. And I don't mean he/she is saying that 'it's easier'. I mean real complaint like 'mbs really makes this game uncompetetive'...
Edit:
On November 19 2008 12:54 LonelyMargarita wrote: If you want them to make SC2 a turn based strategy game, please create a thread about it.
If you wish to discuss turn-based games and why to some people RTS games seem to lack strategy after a couple years, make a thread about that (in games forum). I have knowledge and opinions on this and could address them in that forum or in a blog if you really don't understand.
This thread is about the automine feature, and ways to address the problems it creates. Please stay on topic, and please other people ignore those that do not stay on the topic of this thread, so we can keep it on track.
I have never ever said that mechanics was not important and that speed at which you makes decisions is not. All I wanted to say is that hindering players =/= making things competetive. How come even in WC3 where you have both automine and mbs there is still a HUGE gap between pros and casual/average players?
All I ever meant is that understanding of the game and it's mechanics is the most important factor and then (if say several people share same understanding) it comes down to physical skill.
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.
I completely agree with you here.
But seriously, whining about something that hasn't been really tested/sent out to the masses and checked out in practice instead of theory is extremely hypocrytic, don't you think?
I would understand if people whined about mbs/automine/whatever being imbalanced after several months of extensively practicing it. I would also understand if they whined about it affecting the pro scene if they were part of it and fulfilled the above statement.
But right now? Complaining about something that is still in alpha phase and haven't really been put into test?
Show me ONE post/blog where a current SC pro-gamer complains about SC2 interface. And I don't mean he/she is saying that 'it's easier'. I mean real complaint like 'mbs really makes this game uncompetetive'...
Don't have any specific posts/interviews, but I know a lot of foreign pro gamers have played the game and voiced disapproval of the UI, but yeah obviously no one has played the game extensively; however, it seems better to solve the issue pre release as opposed to solving it later.
As far as experience with MBS/Automine.. it's dumb to compare games, but I'll do it anyways.. a lot of people have experience with Wc3 which has these features and the game is just too 'slow', which is a problem for the reasons I stated previously.
I think the biggest problems is that casual/weaker players are selling themselves short. They assume they can't play a game without MBS/Automine, etc.. When in fact they're perfectly capable of it if they just put in the practice and have the right mindset.
On November 19 2008 12:54 LonelyMargarita wrote: If you want them to make SC2 a turn based strategy game, please create a thread about it.
If you wish to discuss turn-based games and why to some people RTS games seem to lack strategy after a couple years, make a thread about that (in games forum). I have knowledge and opinions on this and could address them in that forum or in a blog if you really don't understand.
This thread is about the automine feature, and ways to address the problems it creates. Please stay on topic, and please other people ignore those that do not stay on the topic of this thread, so we can keep it on track.
I have never ever said that mechanics was not important and that speed at which you makes decisions is not. All I wanted to say is that hindering players =/= making things competetive. How come even in WC3 where you have both automine and mbs there is still a HUGE gap between pros and casual/average players?
All I ever meant is that understanding of the game and it's mechanics is the most important factor and then (if say several people share same understanding) it comes down to physical skill.
There will always be a gap between pros and casual players. The difference is the gap between pro and amateur(semi-pro) players, which is a lot smaller in Wc3 than in SC.
On November 19 2008 13:09 kakisama wrote: anyone feel that all MBS will REALLY do is make micro funner to watch ? instead of watching people macro their way to a win?
On November 19 2008 13:06 vsrooks wrote: it's dumb to compare games, but I'll do it anyways.. a lot of people have experience with Wc3 which has these features and the game is just too 'slow', which is a problem for the reasons I stated previously.
Personally I've played more WC3 than SC and for me they're equally slow... WC3 is slow overall but SC early game is just nothing but scouting/expanding/massing army (unless it's cheese). When I stopped playing WC3 extensively it was fairly common that early stages of the game was heavy harassement etc. which could often win the game pretty fast, 15 minute games were pretty standard while 20 min SC game is considered 'short'.
I don't want to generalize here but that's just how I see things.
Right now WC3 has turned into 'All do the same standard strat vs current race all the time and see what happens' which seems incredibly slow and boring, I hope it will change soon.
Edit: I would also want to point people to the excellent article on the matter here on TL.net
On November 18 2008 03:18 damenmofa wrote: i have to agree this solution is horrible... either u have automine or you don't... why accept the fact that SC2 will have automine and yet don't accept it by coming up with absurd mechanics to negate automining for professional play? Its essentially the same as making a "nub" mode when you create a game and have automine and mbs and all that stuff and making a "competetive" mode where you don't which would be used in leagues and stuff. Either you are against automining or you are for it, this "solution" is some weird way of saying "Im against automining, but I know blizz will implement it anyway, so lets try and find a way to make it obsolete!". I recently played C&C red alert 3 and if Blizz wants to put up with the "standard" noobifications of "modern" rts games, they would have to add a "select all attacking units" hotkey and tabs where you can build your army from, regardless of buildings.. A games quality is not determined by some casual gamers who think of whats "standard" interface or not, but by its longevity and player base. As harsh as it may sound, but after a couple of years Blizz will learn the hard way what people really think of SC2 in terms of quality. Why be against a quality game? If seasoned gamers agree that things like automining make the quality worse, why find some absurd arguments for it? Its bad, it has to go, period.
I think what Kennigit is trying to do is to find some middle ground with Blizzard. Apparently, Bowder's grandma should be able to play the game. At the same time, the competitive community is worried about how it will scale to the higher end of the skill scale.
We can stand on our heads and scream WTH MBS IS BAD IT SUCKS LOL PLS TAKE IT AWAY, but in the end, it's Blizzard's decision. What we're TRYING to do here is find some mechanic that makes it possible for SC2 macro to be as challenging as SCBW macro. That's all this is, period.
On November 19 2008 13:06 vsrooks wrote: it's dumb to compare games, but I'll do it anyways.. a lot of people have experience with Wc3 which has these features and the game is just too 'slow', which is a problem for the reasons I stated previously.
Personally I've played more WC3 than SC and for me they're equally slow... WC3 is slow overall but SC early game is just nothing but scouting/expanding/massing army (unless it's cheese). When I stopped playing WC3 extensively it was fairly common that early stages of the game was heavy harassement etc. which could often win the game pretty fast, 15 minute games were pretty standard while 20 min SC game is considered 'short'.
I don't want to generalize here but that's just how I see things.
Right now WC3 has turned into 'All do the same standard strat vs current race all the time and see what happens' which seems incredibly slow and boring, I hope it will change soon.
Edit: I would also want to point people to the excellent article on the matter here on TL.net
You should probably play more SC/watch more SC then. There's a lot more going on in the early game in SC and the action picks up faster and carries through.
I've also played more Wc3 than SC as well. That article also relates to my other statement about how I feel difficult mechanics benefit both sides.
Just give delay when they start mining when automine is been used (first mining starts a bit slower (not first workers though)), then after let say 9 workers if you put then timely fashion to mine minerals you gain "extra" minerals (around 3-10 worker benefit of extra minerals 20-100, depends if you are up to bar with sending workers to minerals) because autominer had delay before workers started to mine.
This makes automining little bit disadvantaged but still non autominer had to make almost perfect worker micro/macro to get that extra minerals.
On November 19 2008 13:06 vsrooks wrote: it's dumb to compare games, but I'll do it anyways.. a lot of people have experience with Wc3 which has these features and the game is just too 'slow', which is a problem for the reasons I stated previously.
Personally I've played more WC3 than SC and for me they're equally slow... WC3 is slow overall but SC early game is just nothing but scouting/expanding/massing army (unless it's cheese). When I stopped playing WC3 extensively it was fairly common that early stages of the game was heavy harassement etc. which could often win the game pretty fast, 15 minute games were pretty standard while 20 min SC game is considered 'short'.
I don't want to generalize here but that's just how I see things.
Right now WC3 has turned into 'All do the same standard strat vs current race all the time and see what happens' which seems incredibly slow and boring, I hope it will change soon.
Edit: I would also want to point people to the excellent article on the matter here on TL.net
Ever wonder why WC3 has no where near as big a professional scene as SCBW has?
The skill gap is so much bigger in starcraft, so you really shouldn't be trying to use WC3 as an example. Starcraft obviously should be out shining example here, since it's the game that turned into the biggest esport.
Also, I don't know where the hell you got your information from, but you say a 20 minute starcraft game is considered "short." This is so false it's hilarious that you're even trying to argue a point on here with such bad misinformation. It's generally accepted that 15 minutes is an average time for a starcraft game, so how a 20 minute game could possibly be considered short is beyond me.
Edit: If you think that because that article is titled mind over mechanics Stork would have been able to do what he did without his speed and mechanics, you are gravely mistaken.
On November 19 2008 12:49 Manit0u wrote: 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?
I call myself an SC fan for what it is, what it has done, and the skill it takes to master the game. SC2 is a different game, and I won't simply call myself and SC2 fan just because its the sequel to Starcraft.
Just strategy would pretty much bore the hell out of me. Sure, its a big part of the game and all, but taking out the difficult mechanics would, in turn, make the game somewhat less amazing and exciting. With easy mechanics like automine, MBS, etc., I would be able to pull off SK Terran like a B+ level terran. Makes it a whole lot less amazing to see SK Terran in action, and generally, the entire progaming scene in general. Difficult mechanics make the game so much more exciting and great, to know that when that progamer pulled off that awesome micro stunt, he was also macroing his base, moving his army, or doing some form of multitask that only a high level of mechanics could acheive.
God... casual gamers are so lazy these days. Seriously come on automining!?! Geez basically you remove the crust of the bread and only eat the good parts of the bread, there is no satisfaction there because you didn't work as hard for it and you didn't eat your crust. When you work for something and competitively, it gives you a higher sense of purpose and reward. I believe Blizzard should really pay attention to the amount of multitasking and skill it takes if they remove all these mechanics from starcraft.
It´s really annoying that UI improvements still carry the stigma of being "casual-caring". It´s supposed to make the game as a whole better, not to simply pacify a specific target group.
They make the game more accessable for new players and remove a repetative and hardly distinctive mechanic from "competative" play. Thats why I bought up the different thinking ways of newbs and pros - Repetative but mechanically difficult mechanics only affect Players that aren´t used to them.
It´s hard to learn since it´s so unintuitive but very easy to master - once you "got it" the actuall gain of getting better at it dwindles rapidly - as being bought up the only qualifying aspect of Manualmining is the distraction.
But "better" players treat aspects like that more like reflexes than desicions. Remember that article: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=82317 ? Simple mechanics have developed to a point where everyone is good enough at them that they no longer factor in as decisive factor. To quote it:
"As Rage pointed out in his TLFE classic Mind Games, often it's “preparation, confidence and decision-making that makes one player win over the other”. In modern Starcraft, build orders are the order of the day (pun totally intended), with countering them well being the key to winning. No longer can a player just waltz into a series, and walk all over his opponent with pure class."
On November 19 2008 15:16 Unentschieden wrote: It´s really annoying that UI improvements still carry the stigma of being "casual-caring". It´s supposed to make the game as a whole better, not to simply pacify a specific target group.
They make the game more accessable for new players and remove a repetative and hardly distinctive mechanic from "competative" play. Thats why I bought up the different thinking ways of newbs and pros - Repetative but mechanically difficult mechanics only affect Players that aren´t used to them.
It´s hard to learn since it´s so unintuitive but very easy to master - once you "got it" the actuall gain of getting better at it dwindles rapidly - as being bought up the only qualifying aspect of Manualmining is the distraction.
But "better" players treat aspects like that more like reflexes than desicions. Remember that article: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=82317 ? Simple mechanics have developed to a point where everyone is good enough at them that they no longer factor in as decisive factor. To quote it:
"As Rage pointed out in his TLFE classic Mind Games, often it's “preparation, confidence and decision-making that makes one player win over the other”. In modern Starcraft, build orders are the order of the day (pun totally intended), with countering them well being the key to winning. No longer can a player just waltz into a series, and walk all over his opponent with pure class."
Read one of my other posts. Mechanics are not just useless tasks, they force players to make choices, give them more to think about, etc.. I'm tired of people assuming that mechanics are just clicks. There's more to it than that and no one has mastered perfect macro and micro in SC.
Players like Flash and Jaedong have better mechanics than other players as well...
On November 19 2008 09:59 vsrooks wrote: The previous points also apply to Oki's statement.
Vsrooks, I've reread your points several times to try my best to understand what you are saying. I think I get your point about FA's suggestion. If your assumptions are true and everyone goes max-minerals, then I guess it does not bring in a lot of diversity. But it's hard to see how this applies to my statements. It seemed like the risk/reward surrounding a player's decision to align their minerals was so dramatic that you initially felt it would alter game play too much. For all its potential flaws, isn't it safe to say the one thing adding vulnerability brings to the table is diversity? But this actually doesn't matter. I haven't thought about it enough to know if I even like the idea myself. Unentschieden's suggestion was just an example to help illustrate what I was trying to say.
I'm more interested in talking about your 2nd point because it happens to deal with the main thing I was trying to say. It looks like you are trying to zero in on the heart of the matter by separating adding depth and adding macro clicks into 2 separate things. If our goal is to add depth, then you reason FA's and Oki's suggestions are suited for that. But if our goal is to add macro then we should go with EntSC's idea. I can accept this line of reasoning applies to my example. But my main point was that our goal should be to have a positive impact on the actual game with our ideas. If we aren't willing to shift our perspective, it's easy to think Blizzard is arbitrarily brushing aside our opinions. A lot of what LonelyMargarita says is true, to a point. Blizz definitely has their design philosophies that they wont compromise on. But they are not going to ignore a great idea just for the sake of being stubborn. If our ideas fit a certain framework they are more likely to influence the game.
We kind of know what Blizzard is trying to do. Whether you love it or hate it, the current gas mechanic is very telling. They are trying to add macro (#2) while introducing some strategic choice (#3). EntSC's alignment idea is great, but what chance does it have of getting into the game? Altering it to fit Blizzard's goals improves its chances.
On November 19 2008 09:59 vsrooks wrote: The previous points also apply to Oki's statement.
Vsrooks, I've reread your points several times to try my best to understand what you are saying. I think I get your point about FA's suggestion. If your assumptions are true and everyone goes max-minerals, then I guess it does not bring in a lot of diversity. But it's hard to see how this applies to my statements. It seemed like the risk/reward surrounding a player's decision to align their minerals was so dramatic that you initially felt it would alter game play too much. For all its potential flaws, isn't it safe to say the one thing adding vulnerability brings to the table is diversity? But this actually doesn't matter. I haven't thought about it enough to know if I even like the idea myself. Unentschieden's suggestion was just an example to help illustrate what I was trying to say.
I'm more interested in talking about your 2nd point because it happens to deal with the main thing I was trying to say. It looks like you are trying to zero in on the heart of the matter by separating adding depth and adding macro clicks into 2 separate things. If our goal is to add depth, then you reason FA's and Oki's suggestions are suited for that. But if our goal is to add macro then we should go with EntSC's idea. I can accept this line of reasoning applies to my example. But my main point was that our goal should be to have a positive impact on the actual game with our ideas. If we aren't willing to shift our perspective, it's easy to think Blizzard is arbitrarily brushing aside our opinions. A lot of what LonelyMargarita says is true, to a point. Blizz definitely has their design philosophies that they wont compromise on. But they are not going to ignore a great idea just for the sake of being stubborn. If our ideas fit a certain framework they are more likely to influence the game.
We kind of know what Blizzard is trying to do. Whether you love it or hate it, the current gas mechanic is very telling. They are trying to add macro (#2) while introducing some strategic choice (#3). EntSC's alignment idea is great, but what chance does it have of getting into the game? Altering it to fit Blizzard's goals improves its chances.
I have no problem with a balance between macro and game depth. Realistically it would be nice to add game depth using a feature that increases macro. I think this is going to be really hard as any method used to force players to macro more is going to have to feel like 'forced clicks'.
My current issue with the worker mechanics is that they either don't solve the macro issue or they're geared towards just macro with no addition of game depth.
I feel that in a pure macro sense, EntSC's idea is a lot simpler, more fluid, easier to implement, easier to understand, and accomplishes the goal in a lot better way.
In a game depth sense, I think the ideas feel forced. They feel geared towards macro, but in the end only add game depth. I feel that there are a lot better ways to add to the depth of the game.
On November 19 2008 15:16 Unentschieden wrote: It´s really annoying that UI improvements still carry the stigma of being "casual-caring". It´s supposed to make the game as a whole better, not to simply pacify a specific target group.
They make the game more accessable for new players and remove a repetative and hardly distinctive mechanic from "competative" play. Thats why I bought up the different thinking ways of newbs and pros - Repetative but mechanically difficult mechanics only affect Players that aren´t used to them.
It´s hard to learn since it´s so unintuitive but very easy to master - once you "got it" the actuall gain of getting better at it dwindles rapidly - as being bought up the only qualifying aspect of Manualmining is the distraction.
But "better" players treat aspects like that more like reflexes than desicions. Remember that article: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=82317 ? Simple mechanics have developed to a point where everyone is good enough at them that they no longer factor in as decisive factor. To quote it:
"As Rage pointed out in his TLFE classic Mind Games, often it's “preparation, confidence and decision-making that makes one player win over the other”. In modern Starcraft, build orders are the order of the day (pun totally intended), with countering them well being the key to winning. No longer can a player just waltz into a series, and walk all over his opponent with pure class."
Read one of my other posts. Mechanics are not just useless tasks, they force players to make choices, give them more to think about, etc.. I'm tired of people assuming that mechanics are just clicks. There's more to it than that and no one has mastered perfect macro and micro in SC.
Players like Flash and Jaedong have better mechanics than other players as well...
Mechanics - yes. Don´t try to generalize me. I was specifically speaking of Manualmining in this case. THAT truly is just clicks. We aren´t discussing the value of mechanically challenges here but Autominging/Manualmining in specific.
Simply because it can be automated so easily should tell about the gameplay value of Manualmining - its such a mindless task the computer can do it better than the players.
EPT
