| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Velr
Switzerland10870 Posts
Massproducing can be fun. I like going over my hatches/gates whatever and hit shit out... If your in the rythm it's just fun to do it... And if your seeing how you pull ahead over your enemy for the sole reason that you are better macroing you just feel really good. Mechanics are fun. | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
Mass producing can't be fun. I hate going over my gates to hit shit out, even when you're in the rythm its just dull . . . even seeing if you pull ahead of your enemy by macroing better it still feels like crap. Mechanics aren't fun. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
This is regarding the concern that SC2 will allow players with a lower APM to be able to win more then they "should." This is a completely backwards way of thinking. A better interface in SC2 will actually stop the high APM from winning more than they "should." It will, in fact, allow players who are better at strategy and worse at clicking incredibly fast to win. That should be the desired state of affairs. Why would you want a game that so heavily favors a high APM? I can think of no reason other than personal bias amongst players who have already developed a high APM and consider that "skill." Yet it is a skill, but not a very interesting skill to base a competitive game around. my response:  Heaven[30D.O.M]. | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
A little explanation might be helpful to those among not in th eknow. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 02 2008 03:32 NatsuTerran wrote: I strongly believe that these ideas are ruining the future of competitive gaming. When games focus too much on the mindgame aspect it puts all the players in the same boat. The better players are simply those that have better mindgame skills. But how long will that last when everyone and their grandma have the capabilities to pull the moves off and just need meta game experience? I enjoy games with tons of longevity, and as someone else mentioned, games that give you that sense of "I'm improving every day." You don't see this in the 'easy to learn, hard to master' games. In halo 3, for example, you strongly improve the first month or two you play, and then you completely flatline. You are now as good as everyone else. Now all that matters is taking the time to grab that regenerator or power drain, or knowing exactly how to place that nade in this exact location. None of this is skill as far as I'm concerned. When I play games I want the winner to be based almost entirely on a player's mechanical precision and speed. Strategy and mindgames shouldn't matter much because anyone can watch a youtube video or replay and instantly improve. Imho games should NOT be easy to learn and hard to master. They should be difficult to learn and impossible to master. Starcraft follows this formula nicely. You cannot be "perfect" at the game because you are always being forced to do multiple tasks at once. Imagine if this developer's Street Fighter dream were to be implemented into something like real martial arts competitions. The competitor's no longer have to train their moves over and over, perfecting their muscle memory. They no longer have to run miles to build endurance and stamina, and lift weights to get stronger. Everyone is in the same boat. The big names in MMA would change every month or so as a flood of randoms learn their tricks and pull off the exact same tactics. I am convinced that there absolutely must be a hardcore entrance level for a game to be truly competitive, and it must outright exclude people who are too slow or stubborn to devote their time into it. The casual market is killing video games. We may not even be 'playing' games in the near future. The video game as we once knew it is on the path to being completely redefined for the casual 4 hour a week game player who doesn't spend more than a month on any one game, let alone thinks about improving. Would you people stop misusing the phrase "easy to learn, hard to master"? Starcraft fits that bill *perfectly* ok? Do you seriously think SC is hard to learn? It might even be *easier* to learn than WC3 or DotA. At least to me, the many different creep patterns, the hero choices (since only a few of them are actually competitively viable as a starting hero - and only one or maybe two of their spells are likely to be viable as a first spell) and so on makes WC3 quite a daunting experience (if you are trying to actually learn how to play, not just randomly playing). Easy to learn, hard to master is, in every sense, a positive statement. Anyway, I think the main deciding factor in WC3 is mechanics as well so wether there is MBS (etc) or not does not tell you how important mechanics will be. I also take serious issue with the way you downplay strategy - saying that all you need to do is "watch youtube videos" is a laugh. Analysis and strategy is important in SC and should be important in SC2. In conclusion, mechanics will probably be the deciding factor in SC2 as well. On December 02 2008 05:17 GeneralStan wrote: A little explanation might be helpful to those among not in th eknow. Heaven used to have something like 500 APM (at least 400) and wasn't very good (comparatively, he didn't suck or anything, he just wasn't anything special). On December 02 2008 03:39 Cheerio wrote: I don't want to read comments to a grand SC2-competition quarterfinal thread where a third of ending posts are about how someone failed or choked horribly. I want to read posts how someone played brillianly. So you should probably not read any SC live report threads since people always exaggerate and say someone choked/sucked/played horribly when their favorite loses? | ||
|
Love.Zelduck
United States170 Posts
On December 02 2008 03:32 NatsuTerran wrote: I strongly believe that these ideas are ruining the future of competitive gaming. When games focus too much on the mindgame aspect it puts all the players in the same boat. But how long will that last when everyone and their grandma have the capabilities to pull the moves off and just need meta game experience? Strategy and mindgames shouldn't matter much because anyone can watch a youtube video or replay and instantly improve. Everyone is in the same boat. The big names in MMA would change every month or so as a flood of randoms learn their tricks and pull off the exact same tactics. Apparently, mindgames and strategies in BW boils down to cookie-cutter bos and memorizing what you see in replays? That's the absolute opposite of mindgaming your opponent and using strategy. The best SF2 mindgamers make the top 8 in SF2 at Evo every year. The mindgames continually improve each year as players try to outthink each other. But according to some of the comments in this thread (like those quoted above), BW's strategical depth and potential for mindgames is so limited and random in nature that SC2 must have deeply strenuous mechanics in order to cover up the inherent lack of strategy in this real-time strategy game. If that's honestly the case, then you're right, the SF2 analogy is way off, MBS and automine should go, and the best RTS is better known as the best real-time mechanics competition. I do admit that the analogy is a bit of a stretch, and that one of the most beautiful aspects of starcraft is the combination of mechanics AND strategy. I don't think any of us are advocating turning Starcraft into Chess 2. I'm getting tired of so many people making that slippery slope that easier mechanics game = eventually brainless game. I love the intensity of bw and the time/focus constraint that each player faces when playing, but there comes a point when the player base is hindered by overly demanding mechanics. A poll a while back showed that something like half the people on this board do more watching than playing bw these days. Then there's the people not on this board (i.e. not involved in our Korean god worship) don't even watch, they just aren't involved in bw at all. Inclusiveness can go too far for sure, but isn't it better to get half your country hooked on a game because it's easier to get into, and then show them hardcore e-sports and see if they can aspire to that? I'd love for SC2 to please everyone, but it won't because people have different expectations of what they think it should be. But what I'd like to see is SC2 replace bw for casuals, for pseudo-competitives, for hardcore iccupers, and for progamers alike. I want it to be a sequel in the truest sense of the word, I want it to be worthy of the name Starcraft, and I want us all to embrace it. I think it can and will happen if we the gamers take a step back and look at the big picture, and if Blizzard seriously gets its ass in gear and fixes some the issues (like macro). Thanks to everyone who has posted so far. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On December 02 2008 05:17 GeneralStan wrote: A little explanation might be helpful to those among not in th eknow. Heaven was known for his then insanely high apm and his horrible play. He averaged 450+ apm pretty consistently and played like ass (comparatively). | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
The ideal interface is one that allows players to input and make their decisions without artificial mechanical impediments. Of course until the interface is a brain link to the computer, there is no way to make it this entirely so, but there is a happy medium in there somewhere. I completely agree with Sirlin that Starcraft has such intricate depth that there really is no way to bring the skill cap within a reachable limit. An example here is the Snipers UMS for Starcraft. This is a perfectly compettive game involves controlling just one unit. One ghost against one ghost has a complicated dance of positioning and timing to see which can fire first and be victorious. Obviously, there won't be pros training eight hours a day to be the best sniper around, but it shows that one unit on one unit can have a deceptive amount of depth. Multiply this by the dozens to hundreds of units built in the average game of Starcraft and you have a very complex picture. There was a discussion on the forum earlier about which race would have the strongest 200/200 given perfect micro. The answer is that there is no "perfect" micro, since it all depends on what the opponent does. Perfect micro would also be controlling every single unit you've made individually. Is that going to happen ever? Definitely not. So in the very narrow aspect of micro, there is an infinite skill ceiling. Building positioning, terrain, counters, expansion timing, worker count, remember supply and building units all come into play in Starcraft 2, even with MBS and automine. I really do believe that a lot of antiMBSers are selling the game short. | ||
|
Showtime!
Canada2938 Posts
On December 02 2008 05:21 Love.Zelduck wrote: Apparently, mindgames and strategies in BW boils down to cookie-cutter bos and memorizing what you see in replays? That's the absolute opposite of mindgaming your opponent and using strategy. The best SF2 mindgamers make the top 8 in SF2 at Evo every year. The mindgames continually improve each year as players try to outthink each other. But according to some of the comments in this thread (like those quoted above), BW's strategical depth and potential for mindgames is so limited and random in nature that SC2 must have deeply strenuous mechanics in order to cover up the inherent lack of strategy in this real-time strategy game. If that's honestly the case, then you're right, the SF2 analogy is way off, MBS and automine should go, and the best RTS is better known as the best real-time mechanics competition. I do admit that the analogy is a bit of a stretch, and that one of the most beautiful aspects of starcraft is the combination of mechanics AND strategy. I don't think any of us are advocating turning Starcraft into Chess 2. I'm getting tired of so many people making that slippery slope that easier mechanics game = eventually brainless game. I love the intensity of bw and the time/focus constraint that each player faces when playing, but there comes a point when the player base is hindered by overly demanding mechanics. A poll a while back showed that something like half the people on this board do more watching than playing bw these days. Then there's the people not on this board (i.e. not involved in our Korean god worship) don't even watch, they just aren't involved in bw at all. Inclusiveness can go too far for sure, but isn't it better to get half your country hooked on a game because it's easier to get into, and then show them hardcore e-sports and see if they can aspire to that? I'd love for SC2 to please everyone, but it won't because people have different expectations of what they think it should be. But what I'd like to see is SC2 replace bw for casuals, for pseudo-competitives, for hardcore iccupers, and for progamers alike. I want it to be a sequel in the truest sense of the word, I want it to be worthy of the name Starcraft, and I want us all to embrace it. I think it can and will happen if we the gamers take a step back and look at the big picture, and if Blizzard seriously gets its ass in gear and fixes some the issues (like macro). Thanks to everyone who has posted so far. Your first sentence is total bullshit. Look at JulyZerg for proof. Even though a lot of SC is about mechanics and cookie cutter builds (took 8+ years to get to this point), if you want to win a championship you need to have the right mentality as well. Any pro would tell you differently. Another good example is Stork. You have to have nerves of steel to win. | ||
|
Augury
United States758 Posts
That aside, I think Sc2 will be a good game no matter what and if you look at Wc3 or WoW, you'll see that just about any game can have a 'competitive' scene. The issue is if it will live up to SC:BW or not and I don't think it will. I'd like to see the foreign scene switch to Sc2 and the Korean scene stick with SC:BW. The Korean SC scene doesn't need SC:BW, it's still incredibly strong, the foreign scene is dying though and could really use SC2 even if it's not as good. | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
While the skill ceiling is infinite in a micro encounter, there is a certain point in micro confrontations that skill basically flatlines and each player executes their micro well enough that they basically draw. This especially true when players do not have to split their attention between battle and production. A given assumption here is that MBS and Automine allow a player to fully control production with their keyboard remotely (and I really do think this is a fair assumption. 4d5z6t0p and boom, instant macro). In this case, there are two equally bad outcomes. Some players have suggested that splitting armies will not be a reasonable outcome, so players will have nothing better to do than babysit their army. No good. Another option is that players will split their armies to divide their opponents attention. This is a desirable outcome from a skill standpoint, but hardly ideal for the spectator. There is no good way for the observer to focus on multiple battles at the same time so either spectators will get sea sick from ADHD screen switching, or they'll be missing a battle happening somewhere else most of the time (unlike some of the time in Starcraft). Another unintended consequence is that harassment becomes more difficult to pull off. The success of harassment is two fold. It draws the enemies attention and it can go unnoticed. Either they opponent has to see it and take care of it, or it destroys them. This is good and exciting. Without macro to occupy a players attention however, they can afford to be constantly vigilant for that red blip on their minimap. Where a player now has more time to harass their enemy, their enemy has more time to defend, leading to yet another freezing of what was a dynamic part of the original. Yet another unintended consequence is the removal of the negative feedback curve for having more bases. In Starcraft, the more basses a player has, the more time and attention they needed to dedicate to production. This meant that their army control might not be as good, they wouldn't produce as well as a player with less to watch, and they would be much more vulnerable to harassment. With MBS and automine, the player with 5 bases can control as well as the one with 3, while still staying on top of harassment. This makes comebacks much less likely. The most important part though is the destruction of the building, production, battle and full map awareness that made Starcraft so fun. Watching an army and occasionally pressing some keyboard commands doesn't have the same zest and multitude of tasks that made every game of Starcraft feel like a never ending flurry of activity. | ||
|
parkin
1087 Posts
On December 02 2008 01:03 ilovehnk wrote: Blizz should have made another expansion for SC and make SC into HD. SC2 is made by inferior designers, unless they can get all the people who made SC back into the team, I doubt SC2 will be as successful as SC. SC:BW HD version please : ) | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
Another option is that players will split their armies to divide their opponents attention. This is a desirable outcome from a skill standpoint, but hardly ideal for the spectator. There is no good way for the observer to focus on multiple battles at the same time so either spectators will get sea sick from ADHD screen switching, or they'll be missing a battle happening somewhere else most of the time (unlike some of the time in Starcraft). I *think* it was in WC3 that they had a split screen view when the players were base-racing.. I'm not sure how easy that is implement tho. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10870 Posts
| ||
|
A3iL3r0n
United States2196 Posts
1.) This is a matter of opinion. 2.) Computer games are much more malleable than physical games. Point 1 is obvious, so I'll address point 2. Soccer's primary mechanic is controlling the ball with your feet. It's what makes soccer, soccer. No one has ever dreamt of changing that. In the same way, mechanics are a primary part of what makes BW, BW. So, if you don't like the mechanics portion of the game, then don't play it. You don't love it like I do, and so many others as well. So quit proposing changes that destroy the spirit of the game. What is the point afterall? You can go play something else. | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12240 Posts
Sirlin has a valid point about difficult-to-execute moves in fighting games. Executing a 360-degree command throw requires a lot of practice and is situational. The only barrier between a novice and expert regarding the move itself is practice, thereby making the move inherently intimidating to learn. But the OP misses the mark. That point does not translate well to Starcraft, where the entire game's strategy revolves around time management. Real-time strategy games allow a great deal of flexibility, and from that flexibility, a strategy and unique playstyle emerges. You may be a player who is 80% micro 20% macro, or vice versa, and you will experience that games play out differently than the games of other players. Additionally, speed is a resource in RTS games, much moreso than it is in fighting games. In fighting games, you are provided with a set 60-frames-per-second tablet, and each move takes a certain number of frames. A jab may take 5 frames, a fierce 30. There are pros and cons to each decision you make because you must commit to the button you press each time, and you must know the ramifications of pressing that button or button combination. However, in Starcraft, speed is a dynamic resource. Players who are faster are able to issue additional commands in the same timespan as slower players. Ideally speaking, a 100 APM player may distribute commands such that 70 APM is micro and 30 is macro, while a 50 APM player may use 30 macro and 20 micro -- in this scenario, the faster player is just as effective with his macro while being superior with his micro. From that stems the subject of time management: if speed is equal between two players, does that mean both players are consistently remembering to macro or micro? Do they experience fatigue as the game progresses, or become less efficient as their number of bases increases? This is a metagame that does not translate well between RTS games and fighting games. Blizzard's decision in favor of increased automation does make things easier for novices to some degree, that much is true. However, while this makes the more robotic exercises a thing of the past, there is something to be said for the time required to execute those practices, and the impact they have beyond a mechanical level. | ||
|
pyrogenetix
China5098 Posts
there are too many factors in a real war that cannot possibly be present in a computer game propaganda economic state soldier's moods weaponry/technology weather landscape and then there are more specific things like your soldiers are they hungry? are they scared? do they all speak the same language? how good are they at following orders? how good are they at fighting? (do your soldiers get more kills than your opponent?) then there are the generals, lieutenants and everything that all make up real warfare. this cannot possibly be included in a computer game but all this drastically changes the outcome of any real life war. so what does it all boil down to? mechanics. so what do you have left if you take away a layer of mechanics? simply a shallower base of mechanics. | ||
|
anotak
United States1537 Posts
On December 02 2008 03:09 FrozenArbiter wrote: Hum, I think starcraft already has some fashion of mindgames in the choice of build orders, no? Maybe not as apparent in random games but I'm sure it's there in tournaments, when players prepare before hand. Of course it does, I'm not debating that. But as someone who played shooters at higher levels of play, and is learning a significant amount about fighters at the moment, I can say that that doesn't even compare. Starcraft Yomi: I won a game of starcraft 2 days ago, PvT, where me, being a terran player knew exactly what my opponent was going to think. So despite me being a 100APM out of practice terran player offracing protoss, I had a feeling the terran was going to biomech, so i threw up cannons and templar archives for storm. His macro was so much better than mine but i annihilated his forces with a few storms. I knew what was going through his mind next, so i got my third and put a hidden pair of stargates and a fleet beacon in a place i knew he would not scan, because i play terran and i know where terrans scan. I built 2 carriers and then as I predicted his metal force of vults and tanks showed up and started sieging in my nat. my 3rd & 4th carrier were on the way and so i waited till just the right moment and they popped out and then revealed them, sniped the tanks and the vultures, and pushed with my ground army. I knew he would start pumping goliaths like crazy, so i just cut carriers and massed a ground army of DTs goons and some zeals. I sniped his third with the carriers and sniped tanks and as the mass goliaths came pouring in, i just walked all over him with my smaller badly microed ground army. That's about mere 4 yomi decisions in a game that took several minutes (don't remember the number). Most games don't even have that level of decision. I've won tournaments with prepared builds locally too. But in a game of Street Fighter there are like 20-30 yomi decisions in a 60 second round. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
I mean, all the examples you gave in there are extremely basic decisions with even a bit of understanding of the matchup.. I just don't really see how you'd artifically add things like that, you'd just have to ensure the game is deep enough and it comes naturally? | ||
|
Ki_Do
Korea (South)981 Posts
but if dont give us more things to do rather than fight and fight and fight it will be so much easy to master. look at war 3, the game is so fucking easy to master mechanics BUT, you got to creep, raid ur enemies creeps, raid enemy base to steal his creeps, buy items(you cant buy them without a near patron) manage 2 or 3 heroes sometimes in different positions in the map. war3 looks like it require much more multitask than starcraft2 so what? was war3 boring to play? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games Organizations Other Games StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
RSL Revival
Cure vs Rogue
Maru vs TBD
MaxPax vs TBD
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
Afreeca Starleague
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
