|
On November 19 2008 15:35 vsrooks wrote:
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.
I agree with you about the worker mechanics that are "geared towards just macro with no addition of game depth." But isn't this also true of of EntSC's idea? The alignment idea is simple and elegant, but could you ever picture Blizzard adding a task like this to the game?
|
On November 19 2008 15:59 oki wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2008 15:35 vsrooks wrote:
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. I agree with you about the worker mechanics that are "geared towards just macro with no addition of game depth." But isn't this also true of of EntSC's idea? The alignment idea is simple and elegant, but could you ever picture Blizzard adding a task like this to the game?
I said EntSC's idea was geared entirely towards adding macro... I simply said it was the best choice so far and probably the best way to increase macro in general.
Realistically I don't think Blizzard is going to listen to anything, but it's worth a shot. If they are actually looking at making the game competitive without removing automine/MBS, I think EntSC's idea has the best chance of doing that without ridiculously over complicating the game.
|
On November 19 2008 13:13 Manit0u wrote:
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'.
This is why these discussions just don't go anywhere. Everyone arrives at some sort of opinion and conclusion, with no grasp of how much they really understand. If you don't play the game at a certain level, you just won't understand why certain things are important, in SC and WC3.
There's nothing wrong with that, but at least you should be aware of your own gaps of knowledge.
http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/W3XP-player-profile.aspx?Gateway=Northrend&PlayerName=manit0u
|
I’ve read over most of this thread again (seems I’m in a different timezone to most people since everyone posts when I’m asleep!). I think I understand the reservations that some people have with my idea (thanks FA and Unentschieden for your explanations).
I tried to focus on a solution that is: simple; provides a macro substitute for automine; is visual; and that is easily balanced. However, I do take people’s points that SC2 should improve on SC1, rather than just replace elements of it. I’m not sure a macro automine replacement is the best method for providing strategic choice, but now that I understand the criticisms, I thought I could make suggestions to incorporate strategy into my idea.
I don’t think a destructible crystal format is a sensible approach because whilst it would be interesting, it dramatically changes the structure/flow of the game. It’s possibly a bit too radical at this stage in the development process, although in principle, I think it’s a very interesting idea.
To add strategic choice to mineral realignment, I thought there could be a cooldown on the process. Clicking the button/hotkey could send the nearest drone/probe/SCV gathering the minerals to perform a short build animation on the crystal formation. I would suggest this is kept very simple (perhaps with no visual indicator other than the worker moving around the crystal formation as SCVs move at present when constructing buildings, with a change in the hue of the formation to signify the realignment process).
This addition adds strategic choice because it means that there will be a period of time when minerals cannot be harvested from that crystal formation. Progamers will have to choose points in the game when they have sufficient excess minerals to handle the realignment downtime. I think the strength of this mechanic is that it can also be balanced easily (just like the realignment process itself) because the cooldown time can be varied within the context of the gather rate benefit.
|
Please im new to these forums so dont flame if this has been said before, but why not just have an option when you create a game, to turn off MBS and auto mine? I realise there may be some problems with balance as the game is currently balanced with MBS, but would it really make that much of a difference? Why not just have the option to turn these things off so new gamers and pros are both satisfied, and the gap between beginners and pros remains as gaping as it is in SC:BW?
|
this idea has been discussed before sexy, and despite the fact that it is the best thing to do, some ppl want to force others to play the game the way they want to
@manitou about mechanics/strategy
when someone says, "clicking faster" its a very ignorant or blind argument, and i believe you are not ignorant , in a fps shooting faster is also clicking faster, in a real time strategy game, clicking faster is also giving orders faster.
Do armies in real life have enough time to think like chessmasters?prolly no
when fighting in real time, thinking is still one factor, but speed is one also, tension and nervousism are two factors added by this kind of gameplay, you can always play CIV4 or Chess if you want to think every move in a perfect way , Real Time *anything* also brings the risk factor to the game, and if blizzard itself want the game to be very fast-paced, i think that the "FAST" in paced is married with "Speed".
If you(not you manitou, just an example) think you are a new Sun-Tzu/Kasparov/whatever and your opponent is a dumb fast clicker and you should be able to defeat him even if you are a "slug" and he is a "jet" then you must think again of what kind of game you are looking for, cause the one that is able to bring its strategy to battlefield faster might always get the edge of the battle.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
so D+ iccupers can play like current B- players
Gross exaggeration ;o
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 19 2008 09:59 vsrooks wrote:
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.
I don't think we can say *for sure* wether SC2 lacks multitasking at this point or not. I agree that yes, given all the "helpful" features added there is a higher chance of this being the case, but if the metagame of the various matchups develops in the right way, we could see a multitask heavy game inspite of all this.
I recognize that many of the people from here who have tested the game have complained about the lack of things to do, certainly. However, I maintain that playing the game for 2 days, with very little metagame developed, is not going to enable anyone to say for sure how the game will play out in its "final" state.
Moving on, let's assume that - as you have suggested - everybody would want to use mode #2 of my mechanic (although hopefully this wouldn't be the case) for the early/midstages of the game, don't you see that it would then become almost directly analogous to the suggestions given so far in this thread?
If the ideal mode is mode #2, and workers emerge in mode #1, then the professional player would want to make sure that his workers spend as little time in mode #1 as possible - just as he'd want to make sure his workers don't stop for 3 seconds because of a rally mining limitation, or he'd make sure to manually order them to mine for a speedboost (or align his minerals).
The one difference, and in my mind this is crucial, is that my mechanic is not there solely for the purpose of forcing you to click. Not only do I not think Blizzard would add a mechanic whose sole purpose is clicking, but I think reviewers would absolutely murder them if they did.
Further, I think there are some possibilites you are not seeing; if we make the cost of mode 2 quite severe, then it won't be used all the time (which could be seen as a problem) but I certainly think it would be used for more than allins. I'm sure it would have its place in many normal builds, making sure the timing is proper for everything you want to do.
Another thing to keep in mind is that while yes, the issue at hand is increasing multitasking, why do we want that? Because we want depth. If depth can be added in ways that are not purely mechanical (although I would argue that my idea could be implemented in a mechanical way, should you choose to) then that is (almost as) good.
You do not come off as hostile in anyway, and hopefully I don't either. I'm just happy somebody is taking the time to discuss this idea, as I still think it has a lot of potential. I had started writing another reply to this, which I felt might have been better, but I accidently pressed some (unknown) button and it disappeared.. Oh well, hopefully I managed to cover everything I meant to.
EDIT: One thing that I am not sure I have made clear is how I intend the SCVs mode of operation be set - I want this done by selecting the SCVs. NOT by clicking the command center and clicking "power mode" (or whatever name it's given).
So if you want to be maximally efficient you would catch every new SCV and set him to mode 2, and if you slip up/don't have the time, you'll just have to drag select all your SCVs and set them to powermode.
Ah, one more thing - on the subject of spectator friendliness, I think my idea could be quite friendly indeed. Simply have the mining sparks glow bigger and brighter when in mode #2. That's pretty much all you'd really need, although if you wanted to you could add a different worker look - the SCVs could have an extra exhaust pipe pop up or something along those lines.
On November 19 2008 19:15 sexyboi69 wrote:
Please im new to these forums so dont flame if this has been said before, but why not just have an option when you create a game, to turn off MBS and auto mine? I realise there may be some problems with balance as the game is currently balanced with MBS, but would it really make that much of a difference? Why not just have the option to turn these things off so new gamers and pros are both satisfied, and the gap between beginners and pros remains as gaping as it is in SC:BW?
I am incredibly strongly against this. All it will lead to is 2 seperate communities, and unlike the seperation of Melee and UMS, these would both be competitive communities (hell, even UMS might develop competitive aspects).
Maybe the game will have enough players at release to support this (although it will hurt the ability to sponsor events and such), but what about in 5 years? In 10?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 19 2008 13:13 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +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 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=82317
It's definitely true that the "action" starts way sooner in WC3 than in SC (it starts @ the 2 minute mark, as soon as your hero pops out basically), and I think Blizzard recognizes this as well, which is probably why they have made it so you start with 6 workers instead of 4. A good change.
However, you are mistaken about the average game length. Surprisingly (or perhaps not so surprisingly, I don't know) the average for both games is pretty much 15 minutes. During PGTour season 7 (I think it was 7, possibly 6) I played something like 500 games as protoss, averaging between 14 and 15 minutes in length - and this was with a fairly conservative style of play for the most part (although, on certain maps I played differently due to the arbiter bug present at the time, which hurt my ability to play long games vs terran).
Oh and @ the quoted vsrooks post:
I don't think WC3 is slow due to mbs or automine, if it's slow (which is arguable) it's a result of the small scale and many limitations placed on macro. In SC you have 10 gateways (or 20), in WC3 you have 2.. maybe 4. If you play human maybe even more, but not considerably.
WC3 has upkeep, so you are even punished for massing (incidentally, I feel like my mechanic would have almost the reverse effect).
I'm sure you know these things, but still.
On November 19 2008 12:53 vsrooks wrote:Show nested quote +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.
And if you asked Boxer this, what do you think he would say  ?
Every new game has this - the smart/creative players start out on top, eventually the dedicated practice machines catch up and it gets harder. Boxer was a bit of both, and Grubby must be as well considering he just won the WCG and the ESL Continental Finals.
|
On November 19 2008 19:12 EntSC wrote:
I’ve read over most of this thread again (seems I’m in a different timezone to most people since everyone posts when I’m asleep!). I think I understand the reservations that some people have with my idea (thanks FA and Unentschieden for your explanations).
I tried to focus on a solution that is: simple; provides a macro substitute for automine; is visual; and that is easily balanced. However, I do take people’s points that SC2 should improve on SC1, rather than just replace elements of it. I’m not sure a macro automine replacement is the best method for providing strategic choice, but now that I understand the criticisms, I thought I could make suggestions to incorporate strategy into my idea.
I don’t think a destructible crystal format is a sensible approach because whilst it would be interesting, it dramatically changes the structure/flow of the game. It’s possibly a bit too radical at this stage in the development process, although in principle, I think it’s a very interesting idea.
To add strategic choice to mineral realignment, I thought there could be a cooldown on the process. Clicking the button/hotkey could send the nearest drone/probe/SCV gathering the minerals to perform a short build animation on the crystal formation. I would suggest this is kept very simple (perhaps with no visual indicator other than the worker moving around the crystal formation as SCVs move at present when constructing buildings, with a change in the hue of the formation to signify the realignment process).
This addition adds strategic choice because it means that there will be a period of time when minerals cannot be harvested from that crystal formation. Progamers will have to choose points in the game when they have sufficient excess minerals to handle the realignment downtime. I think the strength of this mechanic is that it can also be balanced easily (just like the realignment process itself) because the cooldown time can be varied within the context of the gather rate benefit.
That seems to have more potential. I´d say though instead of "alinging" them they should become "refined" -> yellow.
That way your opponent could "steal" your timeinvestment by invading when you just finish preparing your mining site.
On the other hand it would be a quite significant desicion to refine or not to refine, especially since earlier/more is pretty much always better in a fast paced game. I´d hate this to become a incentive to Turtle, especially since it might negativly affect a players flexibility.
Edit: Oh, and great post FA.
Both your and Ents suggestions go in the same direction, modifications in income rate vs. total sum. I actually like it but I´m concerned that the "quick money" option would always be preferable - if things like that come in we would need more expensive and attractive high Tech options to make long term investmens actually "pay off" (unless there is a Earth 2150 mode: first to get 50.000 Minerals wins...)
|
I don't wanna go too far off topic, but wc3 feels slow generally because unlike SC where its as simple as massing and who has more units, in WC3 if you lose a unit that means they get more xp for their hero(es) so you play more cautiously, heal up a lot, and generally speaking treat each unit more favourably than you would in SC.
I have to admit though I'm feeling a large amount of confusion in attempting to visualize the whole crystal thing especially not having played alpha or whatever the hell you wanna call it(no sensible company would call a game this far progressed an alpha)so it kinda hurts it a bit. I think a couple considerations though are:
Early game battles, since the game is intended to have clashes start sooner so it would detract from that if you're worrying about aligning crystals, although I think the the crystal alignment idea of EntSC's was more midgame and onward. With that being the case, the game is naturally going to lend itself to being more micro related gamepllay, even if slightly, just by virtue of the fact units having more abilities so when you have that, plus macro(even if it is simplified), AND a third component of screwing around with gas/minerals, it seems too much like you're making an unneccesary amount of work. I'm not talking about making it more difficult, I'm saying it just sounds like ways to stuff accessories on something, but in the end it looks overdone...yeah that kind of thing.
I've seen the discussion of enough up and coming RTS games that I can safely say whether the intentions are for newer players or for players fixed on the competitive aspect, both parties tend to think up of ideas that clutter the game too much, too much of a fantasy idea, and in the end--unless this breaks the trend--the ideas don't end up making it because they just don't work, the developers end up keeping it simple. I'm not trying to discourage the ideas though, just saying what the trend tends to be.
|
thats not fair for a worker to mine faster if u click it , if u have 3 workers quewed at nexus u cant be at that nexus every time worker spawns to give it the speed , anyway this will generate some major imbalances ! so leave automine as it is or remove it !
|
On November 19 2008 20:14 FrozenArbiter wrote:Gross exaggeration ;o
To be honest I don't know about that.
I'm D+/C- and my strength is in my micro. My macro is pretty bad. At C- when I watch replays of myself losing, almost every single game I would have won if I had better macro.
In SC2 in its current build I would surely have perfect macro as my macro isn't THAT bad, and that coupled with my good micro would definitely allow me to play really well 
|
Sweden33719 Posts
The difference between D+ and B- is much bigger than you think..
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
The difference between D+ and B- is HUUUUUGE LOL
|
On November 20 2008 02:32 -orb- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2008 20:14 FrozenArbiter wrote:so D+ iccupers can play like current B- players Gross exaggeration ;o To be honest I don't know about that. I'm D+/C- and my strength is in my micro. My macro is pretty bad. At C- when I watch replays of myself losing, almost every single game I would have won if I had better macro. In SC2 in its current build I would surely have perfect macro as my macro isn't THAT bad, and that coupled with my good micro would definitely allow me to play really well
By that reasoning, if we got you as micro and another D+ who macroed win vs a B- player in team melee?
|
Back on topic for me:
And what if automine would remain exactly as it is but resource gathering rate would be higher and unit construction times shorter?
Sure you wouldn't have to manually send your workers to mine but you would have a lot more on your hands with just producing units/buildings at a faster rate.
|
On November 20 2008 04:58 Manit0u wrote:
Back on topic for me:
And what if automine would remain exactly as it is but resource gathering rate would be higher and unit construction times shorter?
Sure you wouldn't have to manually send your workers to mine but you would have a lot more on your hands with just producing units/buildings at a faster rate.
I like this idea a lot, although the game would turn more into a macro fest, with all of the abilities that the units currently have, a lot of micro and multi-task would still be required. Albeit in a different flavor from BW.
|
United States47024 Posts
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?
Micro in and of itself isn't that interesting. Sit down with a muta micro map, you can learn to control mutas pretty damn well. What makes it amazing is the fact that high-level players can do it along with so many other tasks in the background.
It's not just about adding "clicks" to the game. Adding tasks brings more multitasking into the game, which is very much a legitimate skill in RTS games.
On November 19 2008 15:59 Unentschieden wrote:
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.
By that logic, shuttles should just have a "pop reaver" button that just drops a reaver, then picks it up the moment a scarab is fired? Clearly the computer can pick up the reaver more precisely than a human.
|
I have read most of the thread and I believe I have an idea that is not proposed yet. I am unsure how others will view it but I'll give it a shot at getting criticism.
Have auto-mine be an upgrade. Purchasable at the headquarters for a pretty sum.
This means:
- No auto-gathering at the start of the game means gosu worker splitting (especially with 6 workers).
- More work on worker management at the start is okay for everyone since there is less to do.
- At some point everyone can get auto-mining.
- Gosu players have the option to save on resources while doing manual mining, but also have the choice to go into easier-macro-mode for a price to gain an advantage over the opponent.
- Moms can get automining earlier for a more enjoyable playing experience when they can't focus on everything anymore some time into a game.
The cost of the auto-mining upgrade can be fine-tuned for the pro gaming side to make it a serious consideration which can seriously help, but which can also get one in trouble if the opponent stays low-econ and pressures at a bad time. Of course I am not sure if this is easily balanced for the moms to be affordable at the right time then. But for the sake of discussion this would be a separate issue.
The bad side, the only one that I personally see (hence this needs more input), is that this would be for every race the same thing which causes some none-uniqueness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
