|
On November 19 2008 20:58 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2008 13:13 Manit0u wrote: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. Show nested quote +On November 19 2008 12:53 vsrooks wrote: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.
In no way to I feel that the Wc3 game flow is slow because of MBS/Automine. I feel the gameflow is slower in general for numerous reasons, but not because of mechanics. Not sure where I said that, might have just been bad wording on my part. When I go back and read my posts, I shudder when I think about how badly they sound.. anyways.
In terms of mechanics I think Wc3 is a lot easier than SC. However, the mechanics are also easier because of the slower gameflow as well. When you're only building 7 workers or so, automine isn't a big deal. When you're only building around 10 units, MBS isn't a big deal. Like I said earlier it's hard to compare them.
The Grubby statement was a general comment about a focus on strategy in general, I just had a quote of his from an interview. There's a limit to 'strategy', less so in SC than Wc3, but it's still there. That's why the game itself needs to be difficult to play and the real intelligence should come out through quick in game decisions, which is only possible with harder mechanics.
I do like your worker idea and it's definitely going to add some macro, especially if players are primarily using mode 2. It will obviously have to be balanced to make mode 1 an option, which I think will be difficult without ruining mode 2. The other problem is that players in mode 1(higher macro builds) won't need to switch the workers, whereas players with short game strats(low macro) would have the extra macro, which would balance out the added difficulty. In general I just think the idea is going to either add primarily macro or primarily game depth. I think both of those additions could be added elsewhere. Sorry I don't have any logical arguments. Your idea is actually structurally really good, I just have my doubts about how it will work in actual gameplay.
I also I think if you took your attention away from specifically the workers, it might be easier to find a mechanic that adds game depth and macro in a better way. Like I said in a previous post, we're not necessarily solving the automine issue, but the lack of macro/multitasking, which doesn't necessarily need to involve workers.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 20 2008 05:52 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
This is not a good comparision, there are many, MANY cases in which you would not want the shuttle to pick up the reaver, and you would definitely want to target for yourself.
I'm not sure I could name a single one where it would be detrimental to have the probe go mine.
@vsrooks
a lot of people have experience with Wc3 which has these features and the game is just too 'slow',
I read this as the game being too slow because of the features, but I can see what you meant to say now.
About having to make mode 1 viable, well, I *think* mode 1 is going to be the prefered mode as soon as you max out/your economy eclipses your ability to spend. In order for it to "solve automining", that's the only time it would need to be viable, since you would have to order all new SCVs to enter mode 2. This is not ideal but still ok I think.
One reason for having macro mechanics be worker-centric is that you produce new workers at regular intervals, so it's a natural focus break or whatever you want to call it.
|
On November 20 2008 06:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:
One reason for having macro mechanics be worker-centric is that you produce new workers at regular intervals, so it's a natural focus break or whatever you want to call it.
Good point, also a reason that EntSC's idea worked as well. Doesn't seem to be any easy answer :/. I prefer EntSC's concept for pure macro reasons, but I think yours stands the best chance of being accepted by Blizzard. Strangely, these are all better concepts than the current gas mechanic though.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
would anyone be interested in doing a debate about mbs and automining online and recorded for the masses? i would be happy to represent the anti-mbs anti-automining side.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Deal with that somewhere else, not in this thread please. If anyone is interested PM him, do not derail the thread.
Thanks!
|
On November 20 2008 10:04 MyLostTemple wrote:
would anyone be interested in doing a debate about mbs and automining online and recorded for the masses? i would be happy to represent the anti-mbs anti-automining side.
Dude, tasteless. You need to get on the next TL podcast along with some other MBS/Automine newb and have it out on the air. This has to happen! Make it your mission!
Chill, Hot-Bid; you know what to do.
|
automine needs to be in single player only. That way all the noobs will be happy and it won't affect the "real" game.
|
How about making auto-mine a toggle option. If you have it on, a sound loop plays of guy laughing and calling you a noob over and over again, and sends msgs to other players in the game letting you know you are a noob, until you turn it off.
|
On November 20 2008 12:23 Luddite wrote:
automine needs to be in single player only. That way all the noobs will be happy and it won't affect the "real" game.
I wonder what is the viability of doing this? I assume most (or at least a much larger margin) of casual players are really in it for the single player missions, cool graphics, storyline, etc., then they'll move on to CnC5 or whatever's new at the time.
Problem I foresee is that it would really turn off any chance of casual players becoming more competitive. Once they get used to automine in single player, I don't see them ever wanting to play multiplayer because it won't have automine. So this could cause a considerable number of people to never play multiplayer. Not even 3v3 Hunters.
I think Blizzard would like to reinforce the competitive player base, so they would not want a barrier like that for casual players trying to become more competitive.
That said, seems to me like auto-matchmaking should solve any fear casual players have of getting into competitive play. For example, a friend of mine who's a noob just joined iccup. After 5 games he was D- and playing close and intense games against players of similar skill level. Auto-matchmaking would just improve on this ranking idea to cultivate better, more fun games for people of all skill levels.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 20 2008 10:18 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Deal with that somewhere else, not in this thread please. If anyone is interested PM him, do not derail the thread.
Thanks!
On November 20 2008 11:53 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2008 10:04 MyLostTemple wrote:
would anyone be interested in doing a debate about mbs and automining online and recorded for the masses? i would be happy to represent the anti-mbs anti-automining side. Dude, tasteless. You need to get on the next TL podcast along with some other MBS/Automine newb and have it out on the air. This has to happen! Make it your mission! Chill, Hot-Bid; you know what to do.
On November 20 2008 14:11 rushz0rz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2008 10:04 MyLostTemple wrote:
would anyone be interested in doing a debate about mbs and automining online and recorded for the masses? i would be happy to represent the anti-mbs anti-automining side. fuck yeah, I would. Anti-MBS and anti-automine here.
I repeat, if this is something you want to talk about, make a new topic or continue in PM. I'm deleting any off-topic posts from now on.
On November 20 2008 12:23 Luddite wrote:
automine needs to be in single player only. That way all the noobs will be happy and it won't affect the "real" game.
Quoting Kennigit from the opening post:
There is really no simpler way to put it. It’s a really tough situation to deal with because Blizzard HAS to stay current with RTS trends which right now is automated mining. At the same time they want to try and make a the competitive scene happy and capable.
Trying to get blizzard to remove automining is not a productive use of your time, and most of all it's off-topic for this thread.
|
One of the first ideas discussed in the first page of this thread was very good, and i liked it a lot, i think the direction of the thought process from the thread maker is really good, and so are the ideas people have been posting.
The idea i like the most is the " scv waits a couple seconds to begin mining when on automine VS scv goes instantly mining if ordered directly". that solution keeps things really simple without having the game enginge calculate speeds and selections and things like that, lore-wise its pretty easy to come up with any kind of crap, and i think it really works because early game it would be really really important to pay attention to that, and mid/late game when there are battles going on it wouldnt be as important becuase u already have a shitload of workers mining so it wouldnt hurt u that much but it would STILL make a little difference that will mark the skill gaps in the same way that BW´s mining does.
I think that would be the best solution, hats off to whoever suggested it first, in the first page of the thread.
|
yeah
this would be good cause mine isnt the only thing a scv do, so thats not obvious that you want it to mine, what if you want it to build something/scout?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
If you rally the SCV to minerals it's pretty obvious you want it to mine. If you want to build something you can either take it OFF the minerals OR rally it somewhere else.
In addition, and I think I've brought this up before, it becomes an entirely useless "feature" as soon as the mineral fields are saturated, as the worker will have to wait in line regardless.
So it basically adds things to do only to a part of the game where it doesn't matter (early stages).
|
FA, do you think it's worth starting a new thread to stimulate debate about a replacement mechanic for automine? This one has got pretty long / unwieldy, and I've seen several people suggest an automine toggle which suggests (quite understandably) that they're not reading through all of the ideas. If everyone that was interested posted a suggestion on the first page, subsequent pages could be used for debate.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
You mean something like taking all the ideas that have been suggested in this thread (the good ones, ie yours, mine, a few others) and posting them all up in the first post?
Maybe, could also just edit the first page too. It's Kennigit's thread, so I'll see what he says too.
|
|
|
I hope Blizzard doesn't read this thread and use any of your guys' ideas. They are just terrible fixes. You can't just integrate something that is supposed to flow with the game. Blizzard did it by accident, its not like they knew what macro was and kept it that way because it was so good.
|
On November 21 2008 01:07 rushz0rz wrote:
I hope Blizzard doesn't read this thread and use any of your guys' ideas. They are just terrible fixes. You can't just integrate something that is supposed to flow with the game. Blizzard did it by accident, its not like they knew what macro was and kept it that way because it was so good.
Blizzard doesn´t try to add pure busywork or shallow (aka at worst gameplay neutral) mechanics - otherwise we´d still have the Starbase.
Blizzard would have to consider (or at least answer to) a suggestion when it has constant and all around support. That can only apply when such a suggestion is founded in facts - stuff like Siege Tank / Archon art falls under this. (They might still consider them but they wouldn´t officially discuss them)
Many suggestions here start with words like: "We all know SC2 doesn´t have enough Macro, so..."
Even IF that were so there would have to be proof or people (like me) would call BS.
You can consider a mechanic poor if it becomes redundand once the above assumtion would for some reason be false.
That´s why I´m not concerned when we are discussing suboptimal mechanics here - Blizzard DOES know what they want for SC2.
|
On November 21 2008 05:02 Unentschieden wrote:That´s why I´m not concerned when we are discussing suboptimal mechanics here - Blizzard DOES know what they want for SC2.
Yeah, they want their moms and wives to play.
|
On November 21 2008 05:52 -orb- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2008 05:02 Unentschieden wrote:That´s why I´m not concerned when we are discussing suboptimal mechanics here - Blizzard DOES know what they want for SC2. Yeah, they want their moms and wives to play.
Because THATS when e-sports are truly accepted socially. The really big sports are so big because so many people enjoy, play and follow them.
I know you mean it negativly but that is what they went for with WOW and it´s the most successfull videogame ever.
Competative play came almost automatically even though WOW is pretty much the exact opposite of competative. It was a LONG process for Blizzard to develop the PvP content as we know it now - people weren´t attracted by that, they demanded it.
SC was the same btw. - they absolutely didn´t expect it to develop such a community (but how could they?) and it took about 7 years to reach a state where everyone was happy with it - it was always good though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
