|
Most of us here on TL.net (I think) are worried (at least somewhat) that Starcraft II will be a game that is overly automated/plays itself/is too noob friendly/takes less skill than BW/etc. However, this fear is usually rooted in the belief that one of the chief appeals of Starcraft is in the skill of execution that can be achieved after years of training and massgaming.
I'd like to propose that even with MBS and automine in the game, what makes Starcraft truly amazing both to play and to watch isn't how hard it is to macro off of 4 bases, but how hard it is to out-think, out-maneuver, out-tech, out-expand, and golden-mouse-July-style out-mindgame your opponent.
The following is David Sirlin's rationale for why he made the execution of moves in Street Fighter easier. Sirlin is one of the top US ST (Super Street Fighter II Turbo) players and the lead designer of Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix.
On November 11 2008 11:11 David Sirlin wrote:
Easier Controls
Inside Street Fighter, there is a wonderful battle of wits, but many potential players are locked out of experiencing it because they can't dragon punch or do Fei Long's flying kicks, or whatever other joystick gymnastics. I'm reversing the trend. There's only so far I can go with this and still call it SF2, but wherever I could, I turned the knob towards easy execution of moves. Let's emphasize good decision making—the true core of competitive games—and get rid of artificially difficult commands.
This will get more players interested in the game, eventually leading to more competition. It will also get players past the awkward beginner phase faster and into the intermediate phase where the interesting strategy starts to emerge.
There are some players who wrongly believe that this "dumbs the game down." Actually, the opposite is true. Experts can perform special moves already, so the changes listed below have very little effect on them. Experts will care about actual balance changes such as hitboxes, recovery times, new properties for some moves, and so on. Making special moves easier, however, just allows everyone else to play the "real" game without needing to develop hundreds of hours of muscle memory just to perform the moves. It's actually sad to hear that some players think that their ability to execute a 360 command throw is why they are good, as opposed to the actual strategy of getting close enough to the opponent with Zangief to land the throw.
Another wrong-headed comment I often get is that easier controls don't leave enough skills in the game to separate good and bad players. The statement is absurd. Easier special moves don't change the strategic depth of the game at all (and the actual balance changes in HD Remix hopefully increase the strategic depth). Furthermore, there's no shortage of nuance for experts. Does Cammy's dragon punch beat Fei Longs? It depends on exactly who did it first, which means that 1/60th of a second timing is just as important as ever. So is positioning, spacing, the difficulty of performing combos, and the skill of reading the mind of the opponent.
I think I'm with the majority here (maybe) when I say I'd prefer that they leave automine and the gas mechanic out, but even with these in, I believe that Starcraft 2 will be inclusive to Starcraft vets, WC3 players, and new players alike. The highest levels of play honestly won't be damaged if some stuff is automated (but let's not get carried away) because after all, what truly separates the gold medalist from the silver medalist is his drive, his passion, his game knowledge, his ingenuity, his unpredictability, his ability to read and fake out his opponent, and his champion-like qualities.
Our most beloved Starcraft heroes are not revered for training >9000 hours a week to be able to multitask at 400+ apm. They are revered for their style, their ingenuity, and their ability to produce amazing Starcraft.
All in all, don't worry too much. Starcraft 2 will be great, we'll all play it, and it'll be fun.
Thanks for reading.
|
Agreed. It's going to be great. Just different. It's not a matter of whether or not it's going to be great, everyone knows that. Whether it's greater than BW is what matters, and how it impacts the BW community (Both pro and otherwise).
I hope for the sake of everyone that SC2 dominates SC1, to refrain from any sort of split community where part of the pros play SC2 and the other part play SC1.
|
The SF2 analogy is very apt, but I think part of high level starcraft is mechanics, in particular the perfect mechanics were are only just beginning to see now, 10 years after SC was released. In top level SF2, like sirlin said, everyone can execute moves flawlessly, but in top level SC not everyone has 400+ apm and can constantly macro while microing their army etc. etc. Decision making and mechanics have an approximately 50-50 importance at top level, some people can make split second perfect decisions, others have perfect mechanics.
Reducing the need for mechanics will increase the level of decision making and strategy, but I think the combination of the two is what really makes SC special.
|
This definitely expresses what I've been feeling for a long time, but never quite could find the words to say what I meant.
I'm still very light hearted on the subject of MBS, but this definitely has geared me a little bit to the pro-MBS side a bit...
|
On December 01 2008 15:31 Ronald_McD wrote:
This definitely expresses what I've been feeling for a long time, but never quite could find the words to say what I meant.
I'm still very light hearted on the subject of MBS, but this definitely has geared me a little bit to the pro-MBS side a bit...
never pro mbs. The beauty of SC is playing with a strategic mind while simultaneously microing and macroing like a god.
There is no argument. Street fighter two has two characters on a 2d screen. Nothing compared to starcraft's multitasking.
Think about it, pros are so amazing because they can do macro and micro while simultaneously thinking and making strategical decisions. That is why they are pro, and I am a scrub.
|
On December 01 2008 15:55 Misrah wrote:
never pro mbs. The beauty of SC is playing with a strategic mind while simultaneously microing and macroing like a god.
There is no argument. Street fighter two has two characters on a 2d screen. Nothing compared to starcraft's multitasking.
Think about it, pros are so amazing because they can do macro and micro while simultaneously thinking and making strategical decisions. That is why they are pro, and I am a scrub.
You have failed to convince me why.
But I'm not here to argue over MBS.
Street Fighter is a lot simpler, but it's a game nonetheless, and the principles of a game still apply.
|
On December 01 2008 15:31 Ronald_McD wrote:
This definitely expresses what I've been feeling for a long time, but never quite could find the words to say what I meant.
This, absolutely. It's exactly how I've felt since the whole debate began. To me the primary element in who wins a game should always be decision making, with mechanical execution a far second. I could go on a long rant on the subject, but we've had enough of those already.
|
The thing is that Starcraft lacks a significant amount of Yomi (mindgame layer, look it up if you don't know what it is) though, something that Street Fighter has a significantly larger amount of... to balance out the decrease in mechanics they really need to add some new stuff in that respect if they keep on this track imho.
|
Execution is a major part of SC. And it should be of any RTS. Without it there is too little left.
|
Doing that "360-whirl" takes time, if you just have to do a 180 it's less input needed, and easier and when stuff is easier its less impressive. Also if it's easier to do you see alot more of it and it becomes trivial
|
On December 01 2008 20:10 BlackStar wrote:
Execution is a major part of SC. And it should be of any RTS. Without it there is too little left.
Congrats. The point flew completely over your head. I'm not sure whether you even read the OP.
Love.Zelduck, I'm fairly confident in my belief, that any discussions on this matter are utterly useless and there won't be any good from this thread.
Interesting quote nonetheless, thanks ;P
|
sc2 can be whatever u want it to be, since it dont make bw die in s. korea
if it happens, well i just wasted my time, sadly for me it will never come back.
btw, sf comparison doesnt even make a point.
there are no special moves in starcraft, only thing you need is attention and awareness to remember its time to macro/re-macro, if you enemy is faster than you at GIVING ORDERS, so you punish him by removing this important part of REAL TIME? You can make special moves(SF) as easy as you want, but this doesnt have the same effect that macroing have in starcraft,
so what, attention and awareness arent useful things in a strategy game?
i dont talk about apm cause in street fighter you easily break the 200 apm barrier same needed in starcraft.
btw ur we all will play sc2
it depends on what is going to happen to this game and with the next games, cause atm i have no interest in buying it
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
this would make sense if mechanics weren't a gigantic part of competitive starcraft
the sf2 analogy doesnt really apply because not every 'expert' player can handle SK macro like Sea[Shield] or blanket storm a terran push like Jangbi
|
On December 01 2008 15:06 Love.Zelduck wrote:Most of us here on TL.net (I think) are worried (at least somewhat) that Starcraft II will be a game that is overly automated/plays itself/is too noob friendly/takes less skill than BW/etc. However, this fear is usually rooted in the belief that one of the chief appeals of Starcraft is in the skill of execution that can be achieved after years of training and massgaming. I'd like to propose that even with MBS and automine in the game, what makes Starcraft truly amazing both to play and to watch isn't how hard it is to macro off of 4 bases, but how hard it is to out-think, out-maneuver, out-tech, out-expand, and golden-mouse-July-style out-mindgame your opponent. The following is David Sirlin's rationale for why he made the execution of moves in Street Fighter easier. Sirlin is one of the top US ST (Super Street Fighter II Turbo) players and the lead designer of Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix. Show nested quote +On November 11 2008 11:11 David Sirlin wrote:
Easier Controls
Inside Street Fighter, there is a wonderful battle of wits, but many potential players are locked out of experiencing it because they can't dragon punch or do Fei Long's flying kicks, or whatever other joystick gymnastics. I'm reversing the trend. There's only so far I can go with this and still call it SF2, but wherever I could, I turned the knob towards easy execution of moves. Let's emphasize good decision making—the true core of competitive games—and get rid of artificially difficult commands.
This will get more players interested in the game, eventually leading to more competition. It will also get players past the awkward beginner phase faster and into the intermediate phase where the interesting strategy starts to emerge.
There are some players who wrongly believe that this "dumbs the game down." Actually, the opposite is true. Experts can perform special moves already, so the changes listed below have very little effect on them. Experts will care about actual balance changes such as hitboxes, recovery times, new properties for some moves, and so on. Making special moves easier, however, just allows everyone else to play the "real" game without needing to develop hundreds of hours of muscle memory just to perform the moves. It's actually sad to hear that some players think that their ability to execute a 360 command throw is why they are good, as opposed to the actual strategy of getting close enough to the opponent with Zangief to land the throw.
Another wrong-headed comment I often get is that easier controls don't leave enough skills in the game to separate good and bad players. The statement is absurd. Easier special moves don't change the strategic depth of the game at all (and the actual balance changes in HD Remix hopefully increase the strategic depth). Furthermore, there's no shortage of nuance for experts. Does Cammy's dragon punch beat Fei Longs? It depends on exactly who did it first, which means that 1/60th of a second timing is just as important as ever. So is positioning, spacing, the difficulty of performing combos, and the skill of reading the mind of the opponent.
I think I'm with the majority here (maybe) when I say I'd prefer that they leave automine and the gas mechanic out, but even with these in, I believe that Starcraft 2 will be inclusive to Starcraft vets, WC3 players, and new players alike. The highest levels of play honestly won't be damaged if some stuff is automated (but let's not get carried away) because after all, what truly separates the gold medalist from the silver medalist is his drive, his passion, his game knowledge, his ingenuity, his unpredictability, his ability to read and fake out his opponent, and his champion-like qualities. Our most beloved Starcraft heroes are not revered for training >9000 hours a week to be able to multitask at 400+ apm. They are revered for their style, their ingenuity, and their ability to produce amazing Starcraft. All in all, don't worry too much. Starcraft 2 will be great, we'll all play it, and it'll be fun. Thanks for reading.
This is exactly my thoughts on the subject, I just havent been able to figure out how to write it down. Good someone else did it for me 
|
sf2 analogy fails on so many levels its ridiculous
while in sf2 not everyone can do the good moves; in starcraft everyone can build units // cast spells because the interface is already easy to use its just some players can do this things better then others wich greatly increases the competetion
and if you compare the time you have to make decisions between an sf2 with simple moves and an starcraft stripped of its mechanics you should come to the conclusion that sf2 decisions are still hard to come by in time while on starcraft you(at least the good players) end up waiting for things to happen
and the other stuff already mentioned
|
There are some players who wrongly believe that this "dumbs the game down." Actually, the opposite is true. Experts can perform special moves already, so the changes listed below have very little effect on them.
This doesn't apply to Starcraft since you don't just fail or succeed with a special move. You can always improve your mechanics.
Another wrong-headed comment I often get is that easier controls don't leave enough skills in the game to separate good and bad players. The statement is absurd.
If you took away the mechanics part of Starcraft, the strategic depth, great as it is, wouldn't be able to fill the whole gap. Luck would play a larger part. This is an old argument and the Street Fighter guy has nothing to say that refutes it.
|
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.
The idea of a skill ceiling is nonsense also. There is a A LOT to StarCraft. If there were no interface at all and people's brains directly controlled actions, it would still be a good competitive game. It's actually insulting to the game of StarCraft to say otherwise. Is it actually very shallow and bad, and only the test of high APM keeps it interesting? No, I don't think so. It is strategically interesting in spite of interface constraints, not because of them.
And finally, consider a game perhaps 1 million times simpler than StarCraft. My Kongai virtual card game with Kongregate.com. Even though it appears to be only about guessing with a bit of randomness thrown in, some players completely dominate at this game. The best player won 30-0 the other day. When you are given the tools in a game to make mind-reading decisions about other players, and the game has enough nuance to give you clues about other players' decisions, then the skill ladder goes surprisingly high, just based on that. Kongai far more of a skill ladder than you realize from first inspection. And StarCraft, oh my, with a million times more nuance, the idea that you'd simply hit a wall of skill and everyone would win equally is super crazy. That's really selling StarCraft short.
--Sirlin
http://forums.sirlin.net/showpost.php?p=1922&postcount=19
|
I've read this thread and most of it is bullshit. Uninformed people stating their ignorant opinions about StarCraft based on their experience with fighting games and F level StarCraft. ;;
|
"There are some players who wrongly believe that this "dumbs the game down." Actually, the opposite is true. Experts can perform special moves already, so the changes listed below have very little effect on them. Experts will care about actual balance changes such as hitboxes, recovery times, new properties for some moves, and so on. Making special moves easier, however, just allows everyone else to play the "real" game without needing to develop hundreds of hours of muscle memory just to perform the moves. It's actually sad to hear that some players think that their ability to execute a 360 command throw is why they are good, as opposed to the actual strategy of getting close enough to the opponent with Zangief to land the throw."
This is the most important part of the analogy, read it 10 times nay-sayers if you must. In short:
- Experts can perform special moves already (SC macro/micro)
- Experts will care about actual balance changes (SC is balanced but SC2 won't be)
- It's actually sad to hear that some players think that their ability to execute a 360 command throw is why they are good (SC as it is, favors mechanics a lot, when you start playing you will do a lot better if you just practice mechanics on 1 build and go with it rather than think about strategies that you can't pull off, leading to required hours spent training for "muscle memory". And its true, you have to spend a lot of time goint through simple mechanics until you reach a level where you can employ strategy effectively. If SC2 will be like this, it will kill new players, and without "noobs" you can't be pros.) The best point of the whole analogy, old SC veterans who spent years learning these mechanics, and they were years, are now pissed to learn that some of the automated (yes automated) skills they aquired are no longer used, and it is from this egoism that they protest, not admitting it ofc.
|
Dont whine before you played the game!!!!!
SC2 is totally awesome. It will be the best game ever. I promise. The graphics are awesome, not bad. MBS is okay, btw I was the biggest anti MBS guy ever before I played it.
The only problems so far is a few AI bugs but it will be fixed.
Blizzard I LOVE YOU!!! You are the only company that REALLY listen to your gamers!!!! THANK YOU
|
On December 01 2008 15:06 Love.Zelduck wrote:
I'd like to propose that even with MBS and automine in the game, what makes Starcraft truly amazing both to play and to watch isn't how hard it is to macro off of 4 bases, but how hard it is to out-think, out-maneuver, out-tech, out-expand, and golden-mouse-July-style out-mindgame your opponent.
The problem with this is the following: it's too short-term.
The goal of many developers is to create something that has ever-lasting replay value.
SC:BW has been going strong for well over a decade, but what about now?
Pro Gamers practice one standard/strong build per map and until they fully grasp the concept they deviate from it.
It took a long time, but finally we're seeing fewer deviations. Maps like blue storm, rush hour and python don't help the cause. Don't get me wrong, there are maps out there that praise innovation, such as: Hitchhiker, Requiem, etc.
We still need something more challenging.
|
Zoler...
nvm
cant risk my tl acc so easy
|
eugen1225, the flaws in Sirlin's reasoning have already been pointed out.
- he assumes that execution in SC comes down to "you either are able to pull something off or you don't" like in SF - completely wrong, there's a huge gradient between various level of execution
- he's completely oblivious of the importance of multi-tasking and decision making associated with it, as in knowing when to micro and when to macro - macro is not just "mindless clicking" despite what ignorants like him think - you need to know WHEN to spend your time macroing, time management is an important skill in SC while it's non-existent in SF, and amost non-existent in WC3 (although I agree that things like manualmining could benefit from decision making within itself, vide my and FA's mineral mechanic)
- there are evident differences between the level of execution between the top players as well as what they focus on (micro- or macro-oriented playstyles)
- he ignores the fact that other people may think that physical skills are just as much a part of being a skilled player as decision making skills
- he denounces the necessity of training muscule memory, which is one of the reasons for StarCraft's being the most competitive e-sport up to date and the reason why players not motivated to work hard enough fall behind, and instead advocates "higher accessibility" which allows lazier, not as hard working players to stay competitive
SC in not SF. His arguments may be valid for SF but you can hardly apply them to SC (and SC for that matter).
What's more, better accessibility can be achieved by introducing a macro mechanic that does not alienate newbies but still has a physical element to it - e.g. the mineral mechanic.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 01 2008 23:56 eugen1225 wrote:
"There are some players who wrongly believe that this "dumbs the game down." Actually, the opposite is true. Experts can perform special moves already, so the changes listed below have very little effect on them. Experts will care about actual balance changes such as hitboxes, recovery times, new properties for some moves, and so on. Making special moves easier, however, just allows everyone else to play the "real" game without needing to develop hundreds of hours of muscle memory just to perform the moves. It's actually sad to hear that some players think that their ability to execute a 360 command throw is why they are good, as opposed to the actual strategy of getting close enough to the opponent with Zangief to land the throw."
This is the most important part of the analogy, read it 10 times nay-sayers if you must. In short:
- Experts can perform special moves already (SC macro/micro)
- Experts will care about actual balance changes (SC is balanced but SC2 won't be)
- It's actually sad to hear that some players think that their ability to execute a 360 command throw is why they are good (SC as it is, favors mechanics a lot, when you start playing you will do a lot better if you just practice mechanics on 1 build and go with it rather than think about strategies that you can't pull off, leading to required hours spent training for "muscle memory". And its true, you have to spend a lot of time goint through simple mechanics until you reach a level where you can employ strategy effectively. If SC2 will be like this, it will kill new players, and without "noobs" you can't be pros.) The best point of the whole analogy, old SC veterans who spent years learning these mechanics, and they were years, are now pissed to learn that some of the automated (yes automated) skills they aquired are no longer used, and it is from this egoism that they protest, not admitting it ofc.
Without getting into the whole MBS debate again, because frankly I don't give a damn at this point (the game looks good enough, let me play it already!!  ). but I have NEVER protested any of the automations from a selfish perspective.
At my absolute peak in terms of mass gaming, when I was A+ on PGTour or when I played 30 games a day for almost a week vs testie before WCG 2006.. I was never able to rise significantly above 250 apm in long games. I don't have great execution (but it's decent), I don't have great speed (but it's decent) - the changes would favour me. And I still argued against most of them for a long time.
So I take issue with people saying we only protest out of selfish reasons, because it's totally untrue - the changes would benefit every single player on this site when playing against a professional gamer.
There's a good chance the game will be fine with these UI additions tho, and I'm gonna wait and see if that's the case before I decide if they are for good or for bad.
|
i only hope that ppl will not change its oppinions based off in that "fresh air" that a new game into a beautiful colorful box provides.
Nor in that starcraft beatiful letters written in the top of the box.
|
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.
|
Sindril maybe a smart guy... But he is also a carebear.
He does not like hard games.
He does not like games that give you a penalty for losing/dying/failing.
He does not like controlls that you have to learn.
This mindset works for *some* genres but totally fails in others.
The problem is, if you think a bit about that I come to the following:
At first i thought:
Penalty needs to be there to make the game exciting.
Then I came up with this:
You don't need a penalty, the game just has to be exciting.
And now I think I cracked the issue:
Whitout a proper difficulty/penalty the game will lose a lot of replay value and in the long run it won't animate you to *replay* the game. This is not the issue for a casual gamer, he will play a game 1 time and then throw it away. But if you want to make a game for the *hardcore* audience then you want to have a hard difficult and the with that coming penaltys for *failing*. See... Sindril actually hates Ninja-Gaiden for the exact reason many people absoluetly love it and carebears hate it (unforgiving, hard but exciting).
It's the same with *to easy* mechanics. If you don't see yourself improving, you will lose interest. Starcraft lives that long because everyone is constantly improving his game the more he plays, it drags you in because you feel that you can get better and you actually see how you are getting better... Be it due to sheer Mechanics, better strategy or just being able to freestyle your game more and more and actually faring better with it than following Build Order X like a lemming.. Your never really *there*...
That last part is something that I think Sindril don't gets. He has the noble thought that games should be decided on a strategic level alone but if this would be the case he should develop some round based Street Fighter or RTS. Then you can talk about pure strategy.
Mechanics are VERY important to games. Being *fast* is a key aspect to SC/BW, it also is to WC3, it also is to Street Fighter, Smash Brothers or whatever game you play competetive. If you take away this the game will end up being very accesible and also very boring. You end up with some game that does not have the strategic dept of a pure round based game and totally lacks the speed/controll-focus of games like Starcraft/Street Fighter/Tekken whatever...
I was never a *fast* player... I hated and still hate spam clicking, I was and I am the epitome of the player you would call *efficient* clicker. I for sure won most of my games due to strategy, tactics and gamesense, not due to my Mechanics (they weren't that bad, but it really showed in my ZvT were Mechanics/Micro is really, really important. My ZvP on the other side was really good because that MU does require not exactly the same skillset).
I could wrap up top 100 WC3 Classic just due to gamesense until the strategys got *standartisized* (Masscaster vs Massdryads vs Guhls) and I lost interest. I never had a real standart Strategy I just seemed to knew better what will work than most of the other *news* because that’s what I was:
A newb that just understood the game a little better than 99% of the others... But replays crush such an advantage in a few weaks/months (boy, I havte replays :p).
The changes in Macro from SC2 will benefit my style of play, I probably will be the better SC2 player than I ever was at SC/BW (if I play enough)... BUT I don't know if these changes will make the game better or worse. Speed is totally underrated by most players, it's one of the deciding factors when it comes to an RTS... REAL-TIME !!!! Strategy.. It's not.. Strategy Whitout Rounds/Turns.
|
Easy to learn hard to master.
ok
The evolution should not be:
Even easier to learn, hard to master.
But:
Easy to Learn, Even Harder to master
if things follow this way "Even easier to learn, hard to master."
it will get so fucking easy to master the games that,
warning same old argument again
+ Show Spoiler +sc3,sc4,sc5 will be about voice commands , tactical action only, maybe without buildings but with reinforcements onlyT.T, or maybe u download it to ur brain and think about it to play, or auto-everything from an infinite queue of everything to automatic unit movement to give u time to overview ur strategies again, and much much more shit to make things even easier and take out tension from the game
|
And as for Sirlins point about mechanical players winning more than they should - they same will happen if you deemphisize mechanic: cookie-cutter strategies will allow players to win more than they should...
He also shows his hypocrisy by saying "Furthermore, there's no shortage of nuance for experts. Does Cammy's dragon punch beat Fei Longs? It depends on exactly who did it first, which means that 1/60th of a second timing is just as important as ever."
First he says execution is not a valid skill and then talks as if good timing was still required. Good timing is execution too. You can easily learn when you need to pull something off, especially in a game like SF, where there are few factors compared to SC, but it's still not easy to pull it off in terms of execution, even with dumbed down physical skills Sirlin style.
edit: He's also delusional in thinking that making mechanics easier to learn will somehow make slow players (i.e. players with bad mechanic) competitive. They still won't be able to pull off certain things in specific timing windows...
|
To be fair, some of my fighting game friends criticize Sirlin heavily for being a player with terrible mechanics and winning primarily based on 1-time tricks (low strong)... that doesn't make him a worse player, but this approach shows in his gameplay and his ideas about game design. He's the type of player who wins on shenanigans, much like a Street Fighter Upmagic. He doesn't understand that a lot of Starcraft's strategic depth is based on the limited time available to the players.
Seriously though, for Starcraft 2 to be competitive I advocate bringing in some kind of game mechanic that would allow for some level of Yomi (mindgame, like rock paper scissors but much more complex), Starcraft lacks that type of gameplay heavily, and with decreased mechanics there must be some way to increase competitiveness...
|
Better map design (like Arkanoid's island vs. semi-island vs. land approach, etc.) and my & FA's mineral mechanic should do.
|
I have thought about this for a long time, I was totally pro-MBS because I believed that the bar would never be reached, even if some weight was removed of its base.
Then after watching a million replays of pros I started leaning anti-mbs, because it was indeed wonderfull, magnific, what they could do, art if I may, and something in all that automation didnt felt like it would kick in.
But now, reading more reports of players who actually played the game, I think MBS will do fine, not because its the best, but because this game is not BW in the end, and therefore they have the chance to try to balance it around creating that same level of always having more things to do than you can with the current easier base mechanics so that begginers are not driven away from the game.
Blizzard is all about creating more than a game, creating a hobbies, and if you want the pro to be followed, you need te base to understand whats going on, and always be able to hope they can play hard and go pro.
|
On December 02 2008 01:14 Ki_Do wrote:Easy to learn hard to master. ok The evolution should not be: Even easier to learn, hard to master. But: Easy to Learn, Even Harder to master if things follow this way "Even easier to learn, hard to master." it will get so fucking easy to master the games that, warning same old argument again + Show Spoiler +sc3,sc4,sc5 will be about voice commands , tactical action only, maybe without buildings but with reinforcements onlyT.T, or maybe u download it to ur brain and think about it to play, or auto-everything from an infinite queue of everything to automatic unit movement to give u time to overview ur strategies again, and much much more shit to make things even easier and take out tension from the game
How does "even easier to learn" ="less hard to master"?
|
I knew Sirlin, and he openly admits that he has never really played SC competitively (if much at all). His perspective on RTS I think is certainly more limited.
People who don't play SC at a high level have no sense on how deep/shallow the game actually is - they look at the things going on, and it's just a black box. You might think it's more complex than it actually is, when in fact, there may only be 2-3 key strategic decisions in a game, and far more tactical/unit control ones.
Giving people more time doesn't somehow magically inject more strategy.
If instead of having say a minute to make a move in chess, you gave people 2 minutes, does that mean you would see more strategy in chess? No, of course not - the strategy potential in the game is inherent.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 02 2008 02:24 anotak wrote:
To be fair, some of my fighting game friends criticize Sirlin heavily for being a player with terrible mechanics and winning primarily based on 1-time tricks (low strong)... that doesn't make him a worse player, but this approach shows in his gameplay and his ideas about game design. He's the type of player who wins on shenanigans, much like a Street Fighter Upmagic. He doesn't understand that a lot of Starcraft's strategic depth is based on the limited time available to the players.
Seriously though, for Starcraft 2 to be competitive I advocate bringing in some kind of game mechanic that would allow for some level of Yomi (mindgame, like rock paper scissors but much more complex), Starcraft lacks that type of gameplay heavily, and with decreased mechanics there must be some way to increase competitiveness...
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.
|
Sc does have maindgames but they are deemphatised when strategic advantages can be negated by awesome micro (which doesn´t have to be bad per se), like loosing your units to a suicide Zealot+Spidermine.
I´m really annoyed how basically every naysayer here claims that Blizzard wouldn´t be able to make SC2 strategicly appealing. SC wasn´t shallow and there ARE games being won by gutsy unortodox aproaches. I´m once again refering to the Mind over Mechanics article.
Obviously it´s reduced to APMbattles if everyone uses the same BOs, but that is something Blizzard should avoid not emphatise.
It´s telling how no one claims that the "mechanical challenge" is enriching but rather "necessary".
|
|
|
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.
|
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.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 02 2008 03:21 Unentschieden wrote:
Sc does have maindgames but they are deemphatised when strategic advantages can be negated by awesome micro (which doesn´t have to be bad per se), like loosing your units to a suicide Zealot+Spidermine.
I´m really annoyed how basically every naysayer here claims that Blizzard wouldn´t be able to make SC2 strategicly appealing. SC wasn´t shallow and there ARE games being won by gutsy unortodox aproaches. I´m once again refering to the Mind over Mechanics article.
Obviously it´s reduced to APMbattles if everyone uses the same BOs, but that is something Blizzard should avoid not emphatise.
It´s telling how no one claims that the "mechanical challenge" is enriching but rather "necessary".
I've always maintained that I enjoy the mechanical side of Starcraft, even if it's not my forte.
|
That is the point many people don't get.
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.
|
This is a point many people don't get.
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.
|
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].
|
On December 02 2008 05:09 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +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].
A little explanation might be helpful to those among not in th eknow.
|
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:Show nested quote +On December 02 2008 05:09 Mindcrime wrote: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]. 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?
|
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.
|
On December 02 2008 05:17 GeneralStan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2008 05:09 Mindcrime wrote: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]. 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).
|
On a serious note though, I think a lot of people are misinterpreting Sirlin's argument. He isn't arguing against mechanical skill as such. The main point is that the competition in a game should be the one between the players, not one between the player and another between a player and the interface.
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.
|
On December 02 2008 05:21 Love.Zelduck wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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? Show nested quote +Strategy and mindgames shouldn't matter much because anyone can watch a youtube video or replay and instantly improve. Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
I wrote it up in another post, but I'll give a short summary here. The more of the 'execution' aspect you take away from the game, the less you give players to think about and the more time they have to make 'strategic' decisions. Smarter players with good game sense will make split second decisions that can save them the game. Players with good execution might not think that quickly, but they can overcome that with their mechanics that they've practiced 14 hours a day to get. Mechanics benefit intelligent players just as much as they benefit mechanic players.
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.
|
On the flip side of the coin, Sirlin is ignoring a large part of what makes Starcraft Starcraft, and neglecting ripple effects from macro automation.
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.
|
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 : )
|
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.
|
people watch counterstrike so i don't see a problem here
|
The problem here is twofold:
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.
|
United States12235 Posts
Comparing fighting games to real-time strategy games is the wrong path to follow. Fighting games are about guessing, provoking, and trapping your opponent, getting him to think a certain way and exploiting that weakness. Starcraft's mind games are much more nuanced as well as multi-layered. Execution of difficult but rewarding moves and maneuvers is pretty much the only similarity between the two genres, but even that is relatively superficial.
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.
|
the whole "less mechanics for more thinking" argument doesn't really work. here is why:
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.
|
On December 02 2008 03:09 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2008 02:24 anotak wrote:
To be fair, some of my fighting game friends criticize Sirlin heavily for being a player with terrible mechanics and winning primarily based on 1-time tricks (low strong)... that doesn't make him a worse player, but this approach shows in his gameplay and his ideas about game design. He's the type of player who wins on shenanigans, much like a Street Fighter Upmagic. He doesn't understand that a lot of Starcraft's strategic depth is based on the limited time available to the players.
Seriously though, for Starcraft 2 to be competitive I advocate bringing in some kind of game mechanic that would allow for some level of Yomi (mindgame, like rock paper scissors but much more complex), Starcraft lacks that type of gameplay heavily, and with decreased mechanics there must be some way to increase competitiveness... 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.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Give me an example of what you want added then? If the things you described are yomi then I think there's enough of it in SC already.
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?
|
you can automatize some tasks , sure
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?
|
On December 01 2008 21:22 InRaged wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2008 20:10 BlackStar wrote:
Execution is a major part of SC. And it should be of any RTS. Without it there is too little left. Congrats. The point flew completely over your head. I'm not sure whether you even read the OP.
You should be careful about your judgments as you can now see that this statement now pretty much embodies the consensus reached in the two pages that followed.
|
On December 02 2008 05:17 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I fail to see how SC is in any way easy to learn. Is it easy to learn marine micro vs lurkers? Dropship micro vs goons? the dozens of build orders you have to memorize and spend about 20 games on each before you are even able to compete? Or maybe you mean learn as in all the unit statistics? That is just as hard as there are many complex number changes that go on such as high ground and concussive damage. There is a ton to learn about SC before you completely grasp the basics.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Easy to learn means it's easy to learn the basics.
It is easy to learn the basics of SC.
Microing marines (well) vs lurkers is not the basics.
Easy to learn, hard to master is pretty much the same as the phrase "An hour to learn, a lifetime to master".. A phrase that has been applied to everything from Chess, to Go, to Poker.
The examples you bring up ALL belong to the "master" part of the statement.
It takes something like 30 minutes to learn all the rules you need to start playing Go, maybe even less to start playing Chess. The time it takes to pick up the absolute basics needed to play a game of SC are somewhere in that area, depending on what you choose to include (as unlike chess or go, SC doesn't have a ruleset you have to learn before playing, so you have to make some judgement calls on what constitutes the necessary basics).
|
I honestly belive that MBS doesnt change lifetime to master
I can be wrong, but for the lack of fact, its all a matter of opinion
|
i cant believe ppl want micro/strategy/build orders to be easy to learn, so what, you want to master the game then isnt macro enough?
|
Why can't MBS be turned on/off when creating a game?
|
wow. the general attitude toward sc2 has certainly switched around from just 6 months ago. Used to be it was like 60% said it was going to be terrible. now its more like 20%. This makes me very happy.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 02 2008 10:51 BanZu wrote:
Why can't MBS be turned on/off when creating a game?
Because it creates a split in the community, something that runs contrary to blizzard's design philosophy when it comes to automatch making: "Less buckets = better"
That and it's not good if 2 competitive communities arise from the two different modes, all that will happen is there'll be a split in prizemoney and competition ;/
On December 02 2008 10:43 Ki_Do wrote:
i cant believe ppl want micro/strategy/build orders to be easy to learn, so what, you want to master the game then isnt macro enough?
Who said that ;o?
|
That guy u replied
And no Wooden, sc2 is not going to be terrible, not for casuals who will enjoy feeling as Jim Raynor again.
But i fear what will happen with the proscene cause if wc3 is no where near brood war, my bias wont let me accept this ... as a sucessor to sc1
|
On December 01 2008 21:40 Ki_Do wrote:sc2 can be whatever u want it to be, since it dont make bw die in s. korea if it happens, well i just wasted my time, sadly for me it will never come back. btw, sf comparison doesnt even make a point. there are no special moves in starcraft, only thing you need is attention and awareness to remember its time to macro/re-macro, if you enemy is faster than you at GIVING ORDERS, so you punish him by removing this important part of REAL TIME? You can make special moves(SF) as easy as you want, but this doesnt have the same effect that macroing have in starcraft, so what, attention and awareness arent useful things in a strategy game? i dont talk about apm cause in street fighter you easily break the 200 apm barrier same needed in starcraft. btw ur it depends on what is going to happen to this game and with the next games, cause atm i have no interest in buying it
(check out the nested quote)
well then i guess you aren't part of his 'we' then. haha.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 02 2008 11:03 Ki_Do wrote:
That guy u replied
And no Wooden, sc2 is not going to be terrible, not for casuals who will enjoy feeling as Jim Raynor again.
But i fear what will happen with the proscene cause if wc3 is no where near brood war, my bias wont let me accept this ... as a sucessor to sc1
Actually I think he's (at the same time) saying that strategy is like that in SC (ie not important and easy to learn).
Anyway, basically everyone seems to think SC2 will be better than WC3 so I wouldn't worry about that (even the WC3 player Rotterdam said he thought SC2 had the potential to be better than WC3).
The thing is that it still maintains pretty much everything that made SC a good spectator sport, and while it has a few of the UI improvements present in WC3 it doesn't have any of the features that slowed WC3 down.
There is no upkeep - so players will not be punished for macroing.
The unit cap is 2x that of WC3 - so games will "play bigger".
Units die, and they die quickly - so games will be as action packed as they are in SC.
And something that Rotterdam brought up: In WC3 you cannot split your army up once you reach tier 2, because at that point the enemy will have too many slowing or disabling spells (dryad poison, Naga frost arrow - I hope that's what it's called - raider ensnare, sorceress slow, shadow hunter hex, KotG entangle, MK storm bolt... possibly more, I can't think of any tho), meaning it's quite dangerous to move around with a small force.
You won't have creeps. Period.
The game speed will be a decent bit higher.
|
On December 02 2008 06:04 Showtime! wrote:
Your first sentence is total bullshit.
My first sentence:
Apparently, mindgames and strategies in BW boils down to cookie-cutter bos and memorizing what you see in replays?
Isn't that exactly what I spent my entire post debating against?
I said I don't believe that bw is that strategically shallow.
I said that saying things like "more strategy just means replay watching and cookie cutter builds" was ridiculous. In the future, please try to get the overall message of a post before quoting it in its entirety and calling it "bullshit".
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On December 02 2008 07:47 anotak wrote: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:
[snip]
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.
You know, I was actually making this exact same point a couple of nights ago.
First of all, I think the easiest way to describe "mindgames" or "yomi" is: it is the art of fooling/tricking your opponent.
Anyway, StarCraft has a very low rate of mindgame opportunities per minute. Ask yourself: how frequently do you "fool" or try to fool your opponent in an average game of StarCraft?
Now, mindgames are pretty fundamental to fighters (the good ones, at least  ), so it's no surprise that they occur far, far more frequently than in StarCraft. It's unavoidable, really. Another example of a game with more mindgames is Team Micro Melee. E.g. fooling your opponent by attacking an unexpected location; or fooling your opponent by burrowing hydras without suiciding; or fooling that guy by running away as if you expect him to suicide, but instead stopping just outside of his burrow vision; and so on. But again, this is possible at least in part because it's a different kind of game.
Although I would find StarCraft more fun if it had more mindgames, I honestly don't know how to give it more. E.g. in TMM, those mindgames arise mostly out of the "Micro" part of the game, not the "Melee" part. So even though it's an area where StarCraft (and perhaps RTS in general) lacks, I really can't complain about it. =/ (Instead I now play fighters and TMM rather than 1v1 games. )
|
On December 02 2008 12:05 Love.Zelduck wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2008 06:04 Showtime! wrote:
Your first sentence is total bullshit. My first sentence: Show nested quote +Apparently, mindgames and strategies in BW boils down to cookie-cutter bos and memorizing what you see in replays? Isn't that exactly what I spent my entire post debating against? I said I don't believe that bw is that strategically shallow. I said that saying things like "more strategy just means replay watching and cookie cutter builds" was ridiculous. In the future, please try to get the overall message of a post before quoting it in its entirety and calling it "bullshit".
Perhaps you should have read all my comments beforehand as well.
You missed the ball.
Furthermore, you should never compare the two genres because they're very different from one another.
Read the last part of your first paragraph. Basically you should have never posted anything at all then because yes, it isn't a fair comparison and SC:BW isn't just about cookie cutter strategies, but nerves of steel as well.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 02 2008 13:37 Showtime! wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2008 12:05 Love.Zelduck wrote:On December 02 2008 06:04 Showtime! wrote:
Your first sentence is total bullshit. My first sentence: Apparently, mindgames and strategies in BW boils down to cookie-cutter bos and memorizing what you see in replays? Isn't that exactly what I spent my entire post debating against? I said I don't believe that bw is that strategically shallow. I said that saying things like "more strategy just means replay watching and cookie cutter builds" was ridiculous. In the future, please try to get the overall message of a post before quoting it in its entirety and calling it "bullshit". Perhaps you should have read all my comments beforehand as well. You missed the ball. Furthermore, you should never compare the two genres because they're very different from one another. Read the last part of your first paragraph. Basically you should have never posted anything at all then because yes, it isn't a fair comparison and SC:BW isn't just about cookie cutter strategies, but nerves of steel as well.
Why don't you read the post he's replying to (by Natsu)? He (Zelduck) is NOT saying BW is about cookie cutter strategies.
|
To rehash some of what has been said, there seems to be two types of games. In one type, the mechanics serve as a hurdle, like in the 2D fighting games. Everyone at the top level can perform every possible action with (near) perfection. In these types of games, difficult mechanics serve only to force people to practice their mechanics before they can actually play the game.
In the other type, there is no skill cap on the mechanics. No one can perform every action to perfection, and there is always room to improve. Here, mechanics serve as a way for a player to differentiate himself. Starcraft is an example of such a game, and it's one of the reasons why this game is so fun to play and watch.
|
On December 02 2008 07:47 anotak wrote:
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.
Never heard about Yomi before, but based on this... there are tons of potential for Yomi in starcraft. Can't say for other people, but the reason why me complain about mindless clicking - that is clicking at buildings - and the reason why it's called mindless in the first place is because it doesn't have this very Yomi. In starcraft huge deal of Yomi is concentrated in the microing your units. That is, your micro against your opponents micro.
When you fly with your shuttle over your opponents sieged tanks, he unseges them trying to prevent friendly damage and at this moment you attack, isn't this Yomi? Or dragoons with reaver shuttle against same force - it's hard to describe how it's going but there are definitely a lot of mind games in this battle of micro. Now of course there isn't much of such Yomi in starcraft, but that doesn't mean that we couldn't have more of it. And before we can include more of Yomi micro we must first get rid of meaningless micro.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing directly with you, I'm just trying to push the point I feel not widespread enough in these discussions. Reading these discussions feels like no more than couple people share the opinion, that there's bad mechanics - mechanics that doesn't have any decision making, that doesn't depend on situation and that consist of the always same thoughtless routine - and there's good game mechanics, like blink, or like warpgates, or like nydus warm, or like anything else that has good potential for this Yomi thing
/end of rambling
|
Holy crap. Thanks FA. If someone else didn't respond to that guy my brain was gonna splode.
|
I really don't like how most of the anti mbs people here are so extreme.
Like, I think certain mechanics should play less of a role in SC2, but I'm not saying mechanics should completely be trashed and removed.
It would be nice to have it to a point where practice will make you better, but sitting there for hours practicing muscle memory is just a little ridiculous to some of us...
Then again, I guess that's why I'm not a pro gamer
|
@FA:
I mainly suggest yomi type concepts because yomi is the other thing that leads to a game being highly competitive, other than mechanics...
@Bill:
I don't know how to add yomi to RTS either really. That's tough for me to answer. I do know that if mechanical barriers are removed, yomi's another big type of brick wall that keeps bad players bad and good players good. A change that leads to yomi would have to be a big fundamental change to the game to avoid being an artificial tacked-on concept I suppose, and I guess that's out of the scope for Starcraft 2 at this stage in development. It seems to me like no matter what really happens, with the lack of mechanics we'll be left with a less competitive Starcraft (though i think saying that MBS and automine will completely remove competitiveness is overstating the issue... but not too significantly).
On December 02 2008 14:54 InRaged wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2008 07:47 anotak wrote:
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. Never heard about Yomi before, but based on this... there are tons of potential for Yomi in starcraft. Can't say for other people, but the reason why me complain about mindless clicking - that is clicking at buildings - and the reason why it's called mindless in the first place is because it doesn't have this very Yomi. In starcraft huge deal of Yomi is concentrated in the microing your units. That is, your micro against your opponents micro. When you fly with your shuttle over your opponents sieged tanks, he unseges them trying to prevent friendly damage and at this moment you attack, isn't this Yomi? Or dragoons with reaver shuttle against same force - it's hard to describe how it's going but there are definitely a lot of mind games in this battle of micro. Now of course there isn't much of such Yomi in starcraft, but that doesn't mean that we couldn't have more of it. And before we can include more of Yomi micro we must first get rid of meaningless micro. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing directly with you, I'm just trying to push the point I feel not widespread enough in these discussions. Reading these discussions feels like no more than couple people share the opinion, that there's bad mechanics - mechanics that doesn't have any decision making, that doesn't depend on situation and that consist of the always same thoughtless routine - and there's good game mechanics, like blink, or like warpgates, or like nydus warm, or like anything else that has good potential for this Yomi thing /end of rambling
nah none of those actions you described are yomi
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/yomi-layer-3-knowing-the-mind-of-the-opponent.html
|
God damn, 4/5th of the people on this board do not fucking understand an argument by analogy. Jesus. Like four people understood what Sirlin wrote.
Interface should not be a hinderance to deep gameplay. Tricky execution =! having your fingers chopped off. sdl;fkkl;lgsdflhk;sf;flkgj;sljsk;l
|
Here's one Megrim,
SC:BW is like playing the piano. Are you an artist, or no? ^^
Love.Zelduck, you are a waste of time and space. Look at all my posts in this thread. Then ask yourself who broke down the cookie cutter/mentality aspect clearer and better. Then you can comeback here and begin to argue.
Raging stupidity at its finest. Thhhhaaanhk yooouu.
maybenexttime said it best (note where it came):
On December 01 2008 23:35 maybenexttime wrote:
I've read this thread and most of it is bullshit. Uninformed people stating their ignorant opinions about StarCraft based on their experience with fighting games and F level StarCraft. ;;
This is one of the most useless threads in the SC2 section that I've seen in a while. Congrats Zelduck you truly know your stuff.
That guy is no expert in RTS; leave the different genres alone.
|
well i do agree that you can't just take a demographic of people, like let's say a bunch of people that play fighting games, and just group them all into a group that is a bunch of flunkies at starcraft...even if that just means they're below average or whatever that means.
true, alot of people specialize in one thing and may ignore other things that they could do, such as playing games, they may only play one game and ignore others...but that's not what everyone does. if it was it would be really hard for game developers to come up with original ideas. they wouldn't have previous games to inspire them or they wouldn't test their new game that they are making, haha.
so let the player play street fighter and starcraft and accept that he might be quite good at both.
and if you need an example, i think there was a starcraft player or two who moved to korea for starcraft and then took up poker. he was good at both, you see.
edit: hmm i don't like that poker is hotlinking some random poker site. haha oh well...
edit2: oh i thought i was agreeing with above post until i started reading everything he said..haha. anyway i am agreeing with OP which i suppose will get me flamed but whatever.
|
On December 02 2008 01:06 Velr wrote:
Sindril maybe a smart guy... But he is also a carebear.
He does not like hard games.
He does not like games that give you a penalty for losing/dying/failing.
He does not like controlls that you have to learn.
This mindset works for *some* genres but totally fails in others.
The problem is, if you think a bit about that I come to the following:
At first i thought:
Penalty needs to be there to make the game exciting.
Then I came up with this:
You don't need a penalty, the game just has to be exciting.
And now I think I cracked the issue:
Whitout a proper difficulty/penalty the game will lose a lot of replay value and in the long run it won't animate you to *replay* the game. This is not the issue for a casual gamer, he will play a game 1 time and then throw it away. But if you want to make a game for the *hardcore* audience then you want to have a hard difficult and the with that coming penaltys for *failing*. See... Sindril actually hates Ninja-Gaiden for the exact reason many people absoluetly love it and carebears hate it (unforgiving, hard but exciting).
It's the same with *to easy* mechanics. If you don't see yourself improving, you will lose interest. Starcraft lives that long because everyone is constantly improving his game the more he plays, it drags you in because you feel that you can get better and you actually see how you are getting better... Be it due to sheer Mechanics, better strategy or just being able to freestyle your game more and more and actually faring better with it than following Build Order X like a lemming.. Your never really *there*...
That last part is something that I think Sindril don't gets. He has the noble thought that games should be decided on a strategic level alone but if this would be the case he should develop some round based Street Fighter or RTS. Then you can talk about pure strategy.
Mechanics are VERY important to games. Being *fast* is a key aspect to SC/BW, it also is to WC3, it also is to Street Fighter, Smash Brothers or whatever game you play competetive. If you take away this the game will end up being very accesible and also very boring. You end up with some game that does not have the strategic dept of a pure round based game and totally lacks the speed/controll-focus of games like Starcraft/Street Fighter/Tekken whatever...
I was never a *fast* player... I hated and still hate spam clicking, I was and I am the epitome of the player you would call *efficient* clicker. I for sure won most of my games due to strategy, tactics and gamesense, not due to my Mechanics (they weren't that bad, but it really showed in my ZvT were Mechanics/Micro is really, really important. My ZvP on the other side was really good because that MU does require not exactly the same skillset).
I could wrap up top 100 WC3 Classic just due to gamesense until the strategys got *standartisized* (Masscaster vs Massdryads vs Guhls) and I lost interest. I never had a real standart Strategy I just seemed to knew better what will work than most of the other *news* because that’s what I was:
A newb that just understood the game a little better than 99% of the others... But replays crush such an advantage in a few weaks/months (boy, I havte replays :p).
The changes in Macro from SC2 will benefit my style of play, I probably will be the better SC2 player than I ever was at SC/BW (if I play enough)... BUT I don't know if these changes will make the game better or worse. Speed is totally underrated by most players, it's one of the deciding factors when it comes to an RTS... REAL-TIME !!!! Strategy.. It's not.. Strategy Whitout Rounds/Turns.
On December 02 2008 01:14 Ki_Do wrote:Easy to learn hard to master. ok The evolution should not be: Even easier to learn, hard to master. But: Easy to Learn, Even Harder to master if things follow this way "Even easier to learn, hard to master." it will get so fucking easy to master the games that, warning same old argument again + Show Spoiler +sc3,sc4,sc5 will be about voice commands , tactical action only, maybe without buildings but with reinforcements onlyT.T, or maybe u download it to ur brain and think about it to play, or auto-everything from an infinite queue of everything to automatic unit movement to give u time to overview ur strategies again, and much much more shit to make things even easier and take out tension from the game
This is exactly what I am thinking. Execution is a major part of competition. Imagine every average player being able to have near perfect macro in midgame or pulling off full parry of Chuns super into combo for the win when you have no life left. That are the things that make the game exiting and those moments are remembered.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 02 2008 21:41 Showtime! wrote:Here's one Megrim, SC:BW is like playing the piano. Are you an artist, or no? ^^ Love.Zelduck, you are a waste of time and space. Look at all my posts in this thread. Then ask yourself who broke down the cookie cutter/mentality aspect clearer and better. Then you can comeback here and begin to argue. Raging stupidity at its finest. Thhhhaaanhk yooouu. maybenexttime said it best (note where it came): Show nested quote +On December 01 2008 23:35 maybenexttime wrote:
I've read this thread and most of it is bullshit. Uninformed people stating their ignorant opinions about StarCraft based on their experience with fighting games and F level StarCraft. ;; This is one of the most useless threads in the SC2 section that I've seen in a while. Congrats Zelduck you truly know your stuff. That guy is no expert in RTS; leave the different genres alone.
...
I have seriously read your comments in this thread thrice now just to make sure I'm not missing something but no, you really are being an irrational asshole in this thread.
2 day ban, come back when you can argue without insulting someone for absolutely no good reason.
|
Even if Sirlin isn´t a "Starcraft-pro" he is a successfull gamedesigner and even wrote a book about "Playing to win" which is free to read on his website http://www.sirlin.net/ .
Even though Sirlin is a Fighting game enthusiast he writes game independently and you will recognize his points in any proscene, even in SC:BW or "real sports".
Here is the list he made of "Traits of a Gold Medallist:"
• Familiarity with tournaments
• Deep knowledge of the game at hand
• Love of the game
• Mental Toughness
• Mental attitude toward winning, losing, improving
• Technical skill (usually dexterity)
• Adaptability
• Knowledge/ability in other games of that genre
• Yomi
• Appraisal
Technical skill is 1 out of 10 here and I find it really, really hard to believe that Technical skill is more important in Real Time Strategy compared to Fighting Games.
Technical skill will be tested in SC2 anyway: Blink, Ghost snipe (especially each other), Viking up and down to name just a fraction.
What I would like a RTS to put emphasis on would be Yomi, Adaptability and Appraisal (just picking my favourite 3, the others are also important).
|
We're talking about being goood/skilled at a game, and not being a champion material, though. So some of these point are irrelevant.
I've also pointed out my objections to Sirlin's train of thought regarding mechanic etc. - most of his misconceptions are due to his ignorance/lack of understanding of SC on competitive level.
On a side note, his reasoning is pretty similar to that of Dan the gaming journalist's.
I'll write more when I finish reading all posts. ^^
|
Just in case I didn't make it clear in the OP, I'm the one who made a connection between SF and SC (and I admit it's a stretch), and Sirlin was just talking about SF. Just wanted to clear that up since a couple of people have posted in a way that sounds like they think Sirlin is making the connection to a game he doesn't play. :D
|
On December 03 2008 01:01 maybenexttime wrote:
We're talking about being goood/skilled at a game, and not being a champion material, though. So some of these point are irrelevant.
I´m really curious where you draw the line. Whyt would be irrelevant to a "non-champion but still competative?"
On December 03 2008 01:01 maybenexttime wrote:
I've also pointed out my objections to Sirlin's train of thought regarding mechanic etc. - most of his misconceptions are due to his ignorance/lack of understanding of SC on competitive level.
That doesn´t matter for the point we are arguing. It´s not like we are talking about SC:BW patches, but about the aproach to competative gameplay in a new RTS.
You are letting your SC:BW experience narrow your vision. We can´t and shouldn´t compare everything to a game that was maintained for 10 years to one thats not even Beta - we´d just cripple the creative process. If there is anything Blizzard knows how to do it´s polish. They would have good reasons to change something.
|
On December 02 2008 10:41 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Easy to learn means it's easy to learn the basics.
It is easy to learn the basics of SC.
Microing marines (well) vs lurkers is not the basics.
Easy to learn, hard to master is pretty much the same as the phrase "An hour to learn, a lifetime to master".. A phrase that has been applied to everything from Chess, to Go, to Poker.
The examples you bring up ALL belong to the "master" part of the statement.
It takes something like 30 minutes to learn all the rules you need to start playing Go, maybe even less to start playing Chess. The time it takes to pick up the absolute basics needed to play a game of SC are somewhere in that area, depending on what you choose to include (as unlike chess or go, SC doesn't have a ruleset you have to learn before playing, so you have to make some judgement calls on what constitutes the necessary basics).
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).
Your quote about Wc3 being hard to learn fits the same bill as my micro examples in SC. You say "if you are actually trying to learn how to play" which means for SC actually learning build orders and not buying what you want. You talk about the viability of heroes, which goes hand in hand with the viability of micro in SC.
Also, I really think people give strategy in SC more credit than it deserves. Everyone who plays this game uses very similar and sometimes identical builds to pro's. This is obviously due to replays and videos, so I fail to see how it is absurd when I say it is easy to learn from a video. Strategy in this game, the way I see it only comes into play in bo5's where you mix the builds up to play mindgames with opponents. I don't see your choice of build mattering in a bo1 game besides taking map into consideration. Tactics, on the other hand, involves terrain useage and micro. As well as practices such as seige pushing along a wall to avoid flanking. I really don't see a lot of thought going into these actions. The more you play, the more common sense it should become. So what exactly is all this strategy that I hear people going on and on about? I gave you my definition, now what is yours?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 02 2008 23:15 dcttr66 wrote:
well i do agree that you can't just take a demographic of people, like let's say a bunch of people that play fighting games, and just group them all into a group that is a bunch of flunkies at starcraft...even if that just means they're below average or whatever that means.
true, alot of people specialize in one thing and may ignore other things that they could do, such as playing games, they may only play one game and ignore others...but that's not what everyone does. if it was it would be really hard for game developers to come up with original ideas. they wouldn't have previous games to inspire them or they wouldn't test their new game that they are making, haha.
so let the player play street fighter and starcraft and accept that he might be quite good at both.
and if you need an example, i think there was a starcraft player or two who moved to korea for starcraft and then took up poker. he was good at both, you see.
edit: hmm i don't like that poker is hotlinking some random poker site. haha oh well...
edit2: oh i thought i was agreeing with above post until i started reading everything he said..haha. anyway i am agreeing with OP which i suppose will get me flamed but whatever.
If you read Sirlin's book you'll see that he isn't very good at starcraft (I think he says so himself, I don't remember exactly). It's still a good book tho 
And yes, you are right, many SC players have moved on to poker - such as Grrrr.., Elky, Smuft, Rekrul, Nazgul and many, many others.
Oh and the poker hotlink is not a random site, it's TL.net's sister site, Liquidpoker.net
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 03 2008 02:16 NatsuTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2008 10:41 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Easy to learn means it's easy to learn the basics.
It is easy to learn the basics of SC.
Microing marines (well) vs lurkers is not the basics.
Easy to learn, hard to master is pretty much the same as the phrase "An hour to learn, a lifetime to master".. A phrase that has been applied to everything from Chess, to Go, to Poker.
The examples you bring up ALL belong to the "master" part of the statement.
It takes something like 30 minutes to learn all the rules you need to start playing Go, maybe even less to start playing Chess. The time it takes to pick up the absolute basics needed to play a game of SC are somewhere in that area, depending on what you choose to include (as unlike chess or go, SC doesn't have a ruleset you have to learn before playing, so you have to make some judgement calls on what constitutes the necessary basics). Show nested quote +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). Your quote about Wc3 being hard to learn fits the same bill as my micro examples in SC. You say "if you are actually trying to learn how to play" which means for SC actually learning build orders and not buying what you want. You talk about the viability of heroes, which goes hand in hand with the viability of micro in SC. Also, I really think people give strategy in SC more credit than it deserves. Everyone who plays this game uses very similar and sometimes identical builds to pro's. This is obviously due to replays and videos, so I fail to see how it is absurd when I say it is easy to learn from a video. Strategy in this game, the way I see it only comes into play in bo5's where you mix the builds up to play mindgames with opponents. I don't see your choice of build mattering in a bo1 game besides taking map into consideration. Tactics, on the other hand, involves terrain useage and micro. As well as practices such as seige pushing along a wall to avoid flanking. I really don't see a lot of thought going into these actions. The more you play, the more common sense it should become. So what exactly is all this strategy that I hear people going on and on about? I gave you my definition, now what is yours?
First of all, I don't think the examples I listed are at all analogous to the micro moves you mentioned. WC3 has its own set of micro maneuvers that are *much* more similiar.
Second, my entire point is that I think build orders (or well, openings) are *harder to learn* in WC3 - I don't mean they are deeper or anything, but there's a higher entrance step, since you have a lot more variables you have to get right immediately.
And I can't see what you mean when you say hero viability goes hand in hand with micro viability -one is purely knowledge while the other is 90% execution. I think WC3 has more of these things that you need to know before you can start playing/start playing without feeling completely lost.
Your micro example is more like learning how to, I dunno, pathing-block enemy units to get kills, or something like that - not really essential in the beginning.
I don't think either game is particularly hard to learn (IE both fit the "easy to learn, hard to master" bill), just that WC3 probably has the higher entrance step in terms of information to assimiliate.
As for your second part - how is it different from chess then? People can copy the pros, watch "replays" etc. I don't think doing that without actually playing + thinking about it is going to improve your strategy.
Also, you seem to only talk about early game strategy, maybe my definitions are off but aren't all large scale decisions you make strategy? I'm not saying SC is "strategy only" but I think it's selling the game short if you think "watching some youtube videos" is going to be enough - you have to put in effort to understand why the build is used, how exactly you use it and what you can expect vs various other openings at various other stages of the game..
I'm pretty sleepy right now but I hope this came out okay.
|
Okay so the strategical depth people are speaking of is things like the TvP mid game mapouts such as double expo by toss = 6 fac timing OR 4 fac expo again etc. with the ideas behind the builds and how they work. I have pretty much learned things like this and the theory behind them from just TL.
I don't have a lot of chess experience, but aren't the first 10-15 moves of any given opening the same every time? Similar to SC build orders following supply you would move certain pieces at certain turns. After that the game branches like in SC. And then the main reason that the top chess players remain top is because of the immense amount of meta game experience they have. The chess model is one that seems to be the ideal or golden standard for what a lot of you guys want SC2 to become. I don't have a problem with that per say, it's just a style of game I don't particularly enjoy. By no means am I a stupid player who hates strategy, I just enjoy a game in which I can improve on visibly, something concrete. So my ideal model for many competitive games is something like ping pong, where you take time learning all these difficult strokes and serves and you can visibly see improvement as you pour hours into it.
In this sense neither side of these arguments are wrong, we just enjoy two different sides of the yin yang that make up many games.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Hrm, I don't want to comment too much on chess.. I don't know enough about it. I'm certain you can see visible improvement in chess too tho. Maybe it'd take a while if you are playing some grand master, but it'd take a while if all you were doing was playing vs NaDa as well (or Wang Li Qin - which incidentally is the only Chinese table tennis player whose name I can remember at the moment ).
+ For SC2 you still do have a significant amount of execution anyway..
|
As a chess player I have to speak up here. In chess you evaluate every move upon your enemys reaction to it. The same, or similar openings create vastly different games depending on who plays.
That is like saying that SC has a poor earlygame because everyone has only 3 choices: Terran, Zerg or Protoss.
Chess is a very "meta" game, almost everyone knows the rules and "serious" players have memorized the most common openings (along with the reasons WHY they are common). You can´t exactly win in chess by playing the game well, it´s more that you have to play your opponent. A bit like rock, paper, scissors expect that there is no luck involved.
If you could already tell the next 10-15 moves of your enemy there would be no excuse for loosing - even if it´s "just" the beginning, actually especially then.
|
This should be closed.
I've spoken to Sirlin, the guy doesn't know starcraft. He thinks Blizzard is responsible for modern macro in SC. Quoting him doesn't arguing for or against the presence of automated behavior in the game, it argues for ignorance of what makes high-level starcraft not just competitive, but also spectator-worthy.
Street Fighter, for all its layers of counters, is not gonna fill stadiums. I'll leave you to wonder why this is. To me, the level of multitasking in itself is worthy of spectator appreciation. Reduce it, and you cheapen every aspect of the game from playing to winning.
|
Don't forget that Chess is a perfect information game, while SC is a hidden information game, thus while Chess facilitates quick adaptation because of what you see your opponent do, SC requires that you scout first, which means that opening builds (up until the point your scout reaches the enemy) are somewhat arbitrary in bo1 games. I'm not suggesting that SC give permanent vision of the map or anything like that, I'm just pointing out a small but important difference between the two games.
Besides, the early game is really standard, it's the midgame and lategame where things get really interesting (save for cheesy builds and responses). A lot of what makes that part interesting is execution and adaptation (assuming consistent scouting). That's where the strategy comes in.
|
If you want to move in the direction where the best strategist always win the game will eventually turn into a turn-based strategy game. My favorite turn-based strategy game series is the Advance Wars series. Absolutely brilliant games.
But for me (and I'll assume everybody else here) starcraft is not only about strategy. It's about practice, knowledge and keeping your tounge in your mouth while you execute perfect micro in the midst of macroing like crazy. And while doing this you have to think about strategy.
I don't know if it should be necessary to have 300+ APM. I also think there's room for more strategical thinking in starcraft. But ever since falling in love with starcraft I have a very made up mind about how an RTS should be. What it should feel like. And every time me and my friends (who don't SC) play a new RTS I'm always the best player, simply because I know how to play RTS; what they're all about.
It shouldn't be overly complicated for no reason. Example: I wouldn't want to have to press in a keyboard combination (ctrl+shift+a+d for example) just to fire off a storm.
I've been pro many of the simplifications that SC2 has implemented. One of them is auto-mining. I just think of that as tedious. In general I am pro to many of the suggestions and changes that remove annoying repetitive tasks.
- Selecting a newly built probe and sending it to a mineral is one of them.
- Carefully placing my storms is not one of them.
|
Regarding chess:
Again difference between turn-based and RTS is that in chess it really doesn't matter in what way you move your pieces from one square to another (i.e if your hand is shaking or not...).
I don't even think they should be brought up at all. They're not relevant. Especially chess as it's not a hidden-info game.
|
All this hate is ridiculous. Will a few less clicks destroy the game? Is 1dddzz so much worse than 1d2d3d4z5z? Automine *might* be a bit worse but having 3-4 idle workers isn't *such* a tragedy in BW mid / late game unless you happen to be a korean progamer or something, and I'm sure they'll have plenty of other things on their mind.
After all, lots of much more important macro aspects will still be there - putting down buildings / positioning them, getting expansions, transferring workers, researching upgrades, etc
MBS will just mean more free hotkeys for troops, and automine... I doubt it will be anywhere near as relevant as everyone thinks it will be.
|
Antonak, what InRaged described definitely can be considered as yomi:
You move an "empty" Shuttle over your enemy's sieged Tanks to force him to unsiege (layer 1), he's just scanned your army a moment ago (you're containing him or something) and seen you unload your Zealots so he assumes you're not bombing him (layer 2), but you predicted that after seeing him scan you and took another Shuttle, which was out of his view, loaded Zealots up and actually bombed him. ;]
As for introducing more yomi into RTS - mindgames require both players to participate, so you'd have to make people adopt them into their playstyles (something fighting games players have apparently already done on competitive level), otherwise you'll be just fantasising in your mind instead of playing mindgames. ^^
On December 02 2008 14:54 InRaged wrote:Now don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing directly with you, I'm just trying to push the point I feel not widespread enough in these discussions. Reading these discussions feels like no more than couple people share the opinion, that there's bad mechanics - mechanics that doesn't have any decision making, that doesn't depend on situation and that consist of the always same thoughtless routine - and there's good game mechanics, like blink, or like warpgates, or like nydus warm, or like anything else that has good potential for this Yomi thing
There are ways of turning those mindless routines/mechanics into something thoughful, though.
For more refer to FA's/my mineral mechanic.
/selfpromotion
On December 03 2008 02:14 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2008 01:01 maybenexttime wrote:
We're talking about being goood/skilled at a game, and not being a champion material, though. So some of these point are irrelevant.
I´m really curious where you draw the line. Whyt would be irrelevant to a "non-champion but still competative?"
I'm talking about being really skilled at the game but not necessarily a champion material, like Sea[Shield], who doesn't seem to get past Ro16, or any other ProLeague-oriented player.
• Familiarity with tournaments:
Largely deemphisized. There are less stages in ProLeague (like qualifiers, group stages, Bo3's, Bo5's), the players play as a team, which reduces the strain.
• Love of the game:
There are relatively burned out players who still maintain good level of play.
• Mental Toughness (unless in ACE match):
Qualifying for OSL and then winning it requires much, much more mental toughness than winning a single ProLeague game (even ACE)
• Mental attitude toward winning, losing, improving:
Keeping that type of attitude in individual leagues is a lot harder than in PL
• Adaptability:
Takes more skill in a series of games than within a single game.
• Yomi:
Individual leagues feature mindgames between game (educated guesses regarding BOs, etc.).
What I meant by "being goood/skilled at a game, and not being a champion material" was basically the level of play in your average eSTRO vs. WeMade (no offence) match.
So these traits may be required for one to become a "Gold Medallist" but they're largely marginalized in most progaming matches as not all of them are OSL final level.
What I meant was that we're discussing the level of play where players are clearly excelling at the game but are not fighting over a title.
Show nested quote +On December 03 2008 01:01 maybenexttime wrote:
I've also pointed out my objections to Sirlin's train of thought regarding mechanic etc. - most of his misconceptions are due to his ignorance/lack of understanding of SC on competitive level.
That doesn´t matter for the point we are arguing. It´s not like we are talking about SC:BW patches, but about the aproach to competative gameplay in a new RTS. You are letting your SC:BW experience narrow your vision. We can´t and shouldn´t compare everything to a game that was maintained for 10 years to one thats not even Beta - we´d just cripple the creative process. If there is anything Blizzard knows how to do it´s polish. They would have good reasons to change something.
I'm just saying that many of his point do not apply to SC.
As Zelc pointed out, there are two types of games as far as mechanic go. Sirlin is clearly percieving SC as #1 when it's in fact #2 type. All his misconceptions stem from that.
Also, SC is not narrowing my vision. As you clearly know, I've never argued for keeping SC mechanics intact in SC2. Quite the opposite: together with FA we've proposed the solution to making macro routines (as a substitute to manual-mining and SBS macro) a thoughtful process (the mineral mechanic).
|
On December 03 2008 06:10 exeprime wrote:
All this hate is ridiculous. Will a few less clicks destroy the game? Is 1dddzz so much worse than 1d2d3d4z5z? Automine *might* be a bit worse but having 3-4 idle workers isn't *such* a tragedy in BW mid / late game unless you happen to be a korean progamer or something, and I'm sure they'll have plenty of other things on their mind.
After all, lots of much more important macro aspects will still be there - putting down buildings / positioning them, getting expansions, transferring workers, researching upgrades, etc
MBS will just mean more free hotkeys for troops, and automine... I doubt it will be anywhere near as relevant as everyone thinks it will be.
It's not about "a few less clicks." Can all you pro UI changes people stop perpetuating that nonsense?
It's about:
- rhythm
- micro-to-macro multi-tasking
- micro-to-macro decision making
- time/attention management
- UI changes removing the negative feedback in terms of expanding
If you don't know what those mean, then that's because you're uneducated on the issue, and thus should not post in any thread regarding it unless you stop being ignorant and educate yourself.
|
where else should i look at if my base is fully functional without me?
no i dont want to baby sit my troops, i want to outmacro my opponent like oov always did, fuck micro
gg no re for me?
|
On December 03 2008 06:10 maybenexttime wrote:
As for introducing more yomi into RTS - mindgames require both players to participate, so you'd have to make people adopt them into their playstyles (something fighting games players have apparently already done on competitive level), otherwise you'll be just fantasising in your mind instead of playing mindgames. ^^
People will and do incorporate mindgames into their play when it makes them win. If not having a idea about what your enemy thinks (or making him believe you think something you don´t) doesn´t give an advantage there wont be mindgames - and imho a very shallow game.
On December 03 2008 06:10 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2008 01:01 maybenexttime wrote:
I've also pointed out my objections to Sirlin's train of thought regarding mechanic etc. - most of his misconceptions are due to his ignorance/lack of understanding of SC on competitive level.
That doesn´t matter for the point we are arguing. It´s not like we are talking about SC:BW patches, but about the aproach to competative gameplay in a new RTS. You are letting your SC:BW experience narrow your vision. We can´t and shouldn´t compare everything to a game that was maintained for 10 years to one thats not even Beta - we´d just cripple the creative process. If there is anything Blizzard knows how to do it´s polish. They would have good reasons to change something. I'm just saying that many of his point do not apply to SC. As Zelc pointed out, there are two types of games as far as mechanic go. Sirlin is clearly percieving SC as #1 when it's in fact #2 type. All his misconceptions stem from that. Also, SC is not narrowing my vision. As you clearly know, I've never argued for keeping SC mechanics intact in SC2. Quite the opposite: together with FA we've proposed the solution to making macro routines (as a substitute to manual-mining and SBS macro) a thoughtful process (the mineral mechanic).
Sirlin is/was actually disappointed that SC2 appears to be "more #2 than #1" and his arguments (which I agree with) support #1. The quote in the OP was a direct answer to a SC2 MBS discussion (before the "automine is the devil" days) if I remember correctly.
Sirlin always praised SC:BW for balance, never the UI - even though back at release it was a HUGE noobification compared to WC2 (Queues, A-Attack...)
I already discussed your suggestion if you remember so please refer to the original thread for my comment on that.
|
My dream SC2 would be sooo much like the original =) If you look at D3 it looks just like what you'd have expected it would be! Does Blizzard ever fail to make an amazing game? SC2 is their best chance.
|
Unentschieden, you can't be disappointed that SC2 is #2 and support #1 - that's asking for Blizzard to implement a cap as to how good you can get with mechanics - not gonna happen.
And if there's no cap to mechanics like there is in SF, then they're not a hurdle but an equally important skill.
|
Ok, I read this and I don’t see how it’s not yomi, so elaborate, please ;P
Yomi is just a fancy word for a mind games, right? Playing on each other expectations is a huge part of the micro and all examples from previous post have it, they’re just not so evident if one doesn’t have experience dealing with them. Muta harass would probably be the best example out there - terran tries to predict were muta goes next, and zerg plays on that and tries to put terran out of position. And same goes for good deal of micro battles (by micro battle I don’t mean solely clicking) in starcraft. Layer 2 and occasionally layer 3 of this yomi thing is the norm for starcraft micro battles. Of course these mind games are not as intense and deep and doesn’t last whole game without a single break as in good fighting games but they’re still here and have a lot to say on the game’s outcome.
On December 03 2008 05:49 .risingdragoon wrote:
Street Fighter, for all its layers of counters, is not gonna fill stadiums. I'll leave you to wonder why this is.
erm?? If even kart rider fills stadiums... lol
On December 02 2008 12:55 Bill307 wrote:Anyway, StarCraft has a very low rate of mindgame opportunities per minute. Ask yourself: how frequently do you "fool" or try to fool your opponent in an average game of StarCraft? Now, mindgames are pretty fundamental to fighters (the good ones, at least ), so it's no surprise that they occur far, far more frequently than in StarCraft. It's unavoidable, really. Another example of a game with more mindgames is Team Micro Melee. E.g. fooling your opponent by attacking an unexpected location; or fooling your opponent by burrowing hydras without suiciding; or fooling that guy by running away as if you expect him to suicide, but instead stopping just outside of his burrow vision; and so on. But again, this is possible at least in part because it's a different kind of game. Although I would find StarCraft more fun if it had more mindgames, I honestly don't know how to give it more. E.g. in TMM, those mindgames arise mostly out of the "Micro" part of the game, not the "Melee" part. So even though it's an area where StarCraft (and perhaps RTS in general) lacks, I really can't complain about it. =/ (Instead I now play fighters and TMM rather than 1v1 games. )
But why mindgames are fundamental in one games and are very rare in others? Why there's so much more yomi in fightings? What is the first and foremost prerequisite that makes mindgames possible in the first place?
It's players interaction with each other what makes it possible. In fighters every half of second of the game player changes game face and forces his opponent to adapt immediately, right? (:
Yes, there's no way to add more of the mindgames into starcraft, when such a big part of the game populated by actions, that are opposite to the core idea behind mindgames - interaction between players. Sounds ridiculous if you think about it, but yeah, RTS genre already gimped compared to the fightings in this aspect, since battlefield changes, that force you to adapt and give a counter are much less frequent. Now, why limit it even more with actions that doesn't involve interaction with opponent at all and yet take such sizable amount of time to complete (sending workers to minerals + clicking at individual buildings to produce units and e.t.c).
Why I like warp-in is exactly because of this - with warp-in when you create reinforcement you are going through same thought process as when you move your army: "where warp my force? In the far expand and try to flank opponent from there, or at the main and try to take center? Or maybe half here and half there and use first part as decoy? o.O". First and most important steps on the path of making starcraft more Yomi should be exactly like warp-in.
|
On December 03 2008 06:19 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2008 06:10 exeprime wrote:
All this hate is ridiculous. Will a few less clicks destroy the game? Is 1dddzz so much worse than 1d2d3d4z5z? Automine *might* be a bit worse but having 3-4 idle workers isn't *such* a tragedy in BW mid / late game unless you happen to be a korean progamer or something, and I'm sure they'll have plenty of other things on their mind.
After all, lots of much more important macro aspects will still be there - putting down buildings / positioning them, getting expansions, transferring workers, researching upgrades, etc
MBS will just mean more free hotkeys for troops, and automine... I doubt it will be anywhere near as relevant as everyone thinks it will be. It's not about "a few less clicks." Can all you pro UI changes people stop perpetuating that nonsense? It's about: - rhythm - micro-to-macro multi-tasking - micro-to-macro decision making - time/attention management - UI changes removing the negative feedback in terms of expanding If you don't know what those mean, then that's because you're uneducated on the issue, and thus should not post in any thread regarding it unless you stop being ignorant and educate yourself.
I know quite a few fields (like economics or politics) with their hordes of pseudo-experts throwing similar buzzwords as arguments, and they too claim that if you understand nothing to their purposefully obfuscating verbiage then you have no right to argue against them. I've never found that kind of argument very convincing.
|
On December 01 2008 15:26 nataziel wrote:
Reducing the need for mechanics will increase the level of decision making and strategy, but I think the combination of the two is what really makes SC special.
this obviously
|
Braavos36374 Posts
|
On December 03 2008 09:57 onepost wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2008 06:19 maybenexttime wrote:On December 03 2008 06:10 exeprime wrote:
All this hate is ridiculous. Will a few less clicks destroy the game? Is 1dddzz so much worse than 1d2d3d4z5z? Automine *might* be a bit worse but having 3-4 idle workers isn't *such* a tragedy in BW mid / late game unless you happen to be a korean progamer or something, and I'm sure they'll have plenty of other things on their mind.
After all, lots of much more important macro aspects will still be there - putting down buildings / positioning them, getting expansions, transferring workers, researching upgrades, etc
MBS will just mean more free hotkeys for troops, and automine... I doubt it will be anywhere near as relevant as everyone thinks it will be. It's not about "a few less clicks." Can all you pro UI changes people stop perpetuating that nonsense? It's about: - rhythm - micro-to-macro multi-tasking - micro-to-macro decision making - time/attention management - UI changes removing the negative feedback in terms of expanding If you don't know what those mean, then that's because you're uneducated on the issue, and thus should not post in any thread regarding it unless you stop being ignorant and educate yourself. I know quite a few fields (like economics or politics) with their hordes of pseudo-experts throwing similar buzzwords as arguments, and they too claim that if you understand nothing to their purposefully obfuscating verbiage then you have no right to argue against them. I've never found that kind of argument very convincing.
Well, that's not strictly true, since what maybenexttime says is not inaccurate in relation to Star - it's just that all of this stuff is a secondary meta-layer built-up over the initial stage of 'fighting the UI', which over the period of 10 years has come to be considered skill. What Sirlin wrote about, and what 99% of people apparently don't understand, is the initial design layer that the game is founded on. He is suggesting a revision of the design paradigm (god i hate using that word).
|
I can understand the automining, but wtf is up with the gas mechanic bullshit.
|
On December 03 2008 11:33 Megrim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2008 09:57 onepost wrote:On December 03 2008 06:19 maybenexttime wrote:On December 03 2008 06:10 exeprime wrote:
All this hate is ridiculous. Will a few less clicks destroy the game? Is 1dddzz so much worse than 1d2d3d4z5z? Automine *might* be a bit worse but having 3-4 idle workers isn't *such* a tragedy in BW mid / late game unless you happen to be a korean progamer or something, and I'm sure they'll have plenty of other things on their mind.
After all, lots of much more important macro aspects will still be there - putting down buildings / positioning them, getting expansions, transferring workers, researching upgrades, etc
MBS will just mean more free hotkeys for troops, and automine... I doubt it will be anywhere near as relevant as everyone thinks it will be. It's not about "a few less clicks." Can all you pro UI changes people stop perpetuating that nonsense? It's about: - rhythm - micro-to-macro multi-tasking - micro-to-macro decision making - time/attention management - UI changes removing the negative feedback in terms of expanding If you don't know what those mean, then that's because you're uneducated on the issue, and thus should not post in any thread regarding it unless you stop being ignorant and educate yourself. I know quite a few fields (like economics or politics) with their hordes of pseudo-experts throwing similar buzzwords as arguments, and they too claim that if you understand nothing to their purposefully obfuscating verbiage then you have no right to argue against them. I've never found that kind of argument very convincing. Well, that's not strictly true, since what maybenexttime says is not inaccurate in relation to Star - it's just that all of this stuff is a secondary meta-layer built-up over the initial stage of 'fighting the UI', which over the period of 10 years has come to be considered skill. What Sirlin wrote about, and what 99% of people apparently don't understand, is the initial design layer that the game is founded on. He is suggesting a revision of the design paradigm (god i hate using that word).
Funny. The same people who claim that the game was meant to become a crazy macro+micro exercice from the start also claim that Blizzard never anticipated that it would become such as it is today, thus the result of "luck", which they are undoing with SC2.
To be fair, there is some truth in it, despite the fragrant flagrant contradiction: nobody anticipated what would become of SC:BW a decade later. I say trust Blizzard and give SC2 a chance, because it will also take that long for its own full potential to be unleashed.
|
It's 'flagrant contradiction' sweetheart. A fragrance is something that smells nice.
|
On December 03 2008 12:51 Megrim wrote:
It's 'flagrant contradiction' sweetheart. A fragrance is something that smells nice.
Ooops. My bad. 
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On December 03 2008 05:49 .risingdragoon wrote:
Street Fighter, for all its layers of counters, is not gonna fill stadiums. I'll leave you to wonder why this is. To me, the level of multitasking in itself is worthy of spectator appreciation. Reduce it, and you cheapen every aspect of the game from playing to winning.
You are an idiot.
First of all, Street Fighter does fill stadiums. (there's no game footage in this one, but look at 4:30 onwards to see a view of the arena)
Furthermore, the crowd makes a lot more noise during Street Fighter compared to StarCraft. (this video is of last year's finals) That should tell you something about the game's suitability for spectators.
And these games gather crowds not just in Japan, but also in the US and in Europe. Again you can hear the large crowd going nuts. These may not be stadiums, but there were easily over 200 people at each event, and events like these happen every few months in North America, where people travel from all across the continent to attend them.
Lastly, lol @ multitasking alone being worthy of spectator appreciation. How many of the tens of thousands of casual StarCraft spectators in Korea do you think appreciate multitasking?
|
On December 03 2008 06:37 Ki_Do wrote:
where else should i look at if my base is fully functional without me?
no i dont want to baby sit my troops, i want to outmacro my opponent like oov always did, fuck micro
gg no re for me?
Who says you can't do that? Outmacroing will just mean that you're doing it by having perfect expo timing, perfect worker saturation, perfect build orders, and most importantly: by denying or killing your opponent expansions, and by defending your own.
Rather than just being the fastest at clicking through gateways, an extremely repetitive and thus boring task (for many players).
The definition of "good macro" will change. In SC1, it's essentially equivalent to "good multitasking". In SC2, it will have more strategic qualities. Remember all the new ways to get across the map to enemy expansions... it'll probably be harder to defend expansions so you automatically need to spend more APM/time to defend/secure those expos.
And if you don't like micro, you shouldn't win any fights actually. It's sad when someone who doesn't give a shit for micro wins at SC... micro should be the number one priority in battles. If a battle happens, your focus should be on micro (and macro just in those split seconds where you don't have to micro). If a battle happens and you let your units die in order to build 8 new ones instead (which pop out very fast too), then the game is seriously imbalanced in favor of macro, and that needs to change. It should be obvious that when a battle is happening, that micro should be done, no? That's also the reason why years ago the pimpest plays were really cool - progamers really used a lot of micro tricks in order to win battles and save their units (Boxer-style m&m vs. lurk dancing, really cool lurk/ling flanks, etc... now it's mostly just "wait for big army then A-move" because macro is so much better than micro, even during fights)
|
On December 03 2008 09:57 onepost wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2008 06:19 maybenexttime wrote:On December 03 2008 06:10 exeprime wrote:
All this hate is ridiculous. Will a few less clicks destroy the game? Is 1dddzz so much worse than 1d2d3d4z5z? Automine *might* be a bit worse but having 3-4 idle workers isn't *such* a tragedy in BW mid / late game unless you happen to be a korean progamer or something, and I'm sure they'll have plenty of other things on their mind.
After all, lots of much more important macro aspects will still be there - putting down buildings / positioning them, getting expansions, transferring workers, researching upgrades, etc
MBS will just mean more free hotkeys for troops, and automine... I doubt it will be anywhere near as relevant as everyone thinks it will be. It's not about "a few less clicks." Can all you pro UI changes people stop perpetuating that nonsense? It's about: - rhythm - micro-to-macro multi-tasking - micro-to-macro decision making - time/attention management - UI changes removing the negative feedback in terms of expanding If you don't know what those mean, then that's because you're uneducated on the issue, and thus should not post in any thread regarding it unless you stop being ignorant and educate yourself. I know quite a few fields (like economics or politics) with their hordes of pseudo-experts throwing similar buzzwords as arguments, and they too claim that if you understand nothing to their purposefully obfuscating verbiage then you have no right to argue against them. I've never found that kind of argument very convincing.
They are not buzzwords. If you don't know what they mean (which you apparently do not) then refer to numerous MBS/auto-mining threads instead of deliberately derailing the thread.
Could you refrain from downplaying my post out of sheer ignorance?
I'm not going to explain them every damn time some ignorant like you accuses me of using buzzwords. I couldn't care less what someone as lazy as you thinks, tbh.
|
On December 03 2008 08:27 maybenexttime wrote:
Unentschieden, you can't be disappointed that SC2 is #2 and support #1 - that's asking for Blizzard to implement a cap as to how good you can get with mechanics - not gonna happen.
And if there's no cap to mechanics like there is in SF, then they're not a hurdle but an equally important skill.
You can´t be serious. Do you really think thats my point? Also, please read the OP again to see where "we" (the ones agreeing with the OP) are trying to set "limits".
It´s NOT technical skill. It´s useless busywork that is effectivly equal among players and just serve to keep beginners out of the game.
The Blizzard from 10 years ago did just this: The 12 unit cap was a answer to a imba strat: rushing. Instead of making rushing fair they wanted to limit the players ability to do said strategy. They quickly realised that they had to balance it anyway, can you tell why?
|
On December 03 2008 15:44 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2008 08:27 maybenexttime wrote:
Unentschieden, you can't be disappointed that SC2 is #2 and support #1 - that's asking for Blizzard to implement a cap as to how good you can get with mechanics - not gonna happen.
And if there's no cap to mechanics like there is in SF, then they're not a hurdle but an equally important skill. You can´t be serious. Do you really think thats my point? Also, please read the OP again to see where "we" (the ones agreeing with the OP) are trying to set "limits". It´s NOT technical skill. It´s useless busywork that is effectivly equal among players and just serve to keep beginners out of the game. The Blizzard from 10 years ago did just this: The 12 unit cap was a answer to a imba strat: rushing. Instead of making rushing fair they wanted to limit the players ability to do said strategy. They quickly realised that they had to balance it anyway, can you tell why?
I think you're reading my post wrong.
"Sirlin is/was actually disappointed that SC2 appears to be "more #2 than #1" and his arguments (which I agree with) support #1." - Unentschieden
"Unentschieden, you can't be disappointed that SC2 is #2" - MaybeNextTime
That's a general 'you' - I didn't mean you specifically.
"It´s NOT technical skill. It´s useless busywork that is effectivly equal among players and just serve to keep beginners out of the game." - Unentschieden
First of all, you can continously get more efficient at these "repetitive, mindless busywork." So it is an acquired skill. The problem with SC's manual-mining/SBS macro is that - despite decision making associated with it as far as choosing when to pay your attention to them (i.e. cyclical, mundane macro tasks) - they are devoid of decision making within themselves (the mechanical routines like going through the buildings and manually telling workers to mine, that is).
As for their being "useless" - they are not. They play a significant role in SC1's gameplay (emphisize micro-to-macro multi-tasking/decision making, time/attention management, rhythm, and largely prevent the snowball effect from occuring).
Can you alter those mundane, mindless tasks into something that requires thought but retains SC1's frentic intensity/physical demands? For god's sake, YES!
Then why not stop arguing about taking either of the extreme paths (keeping the old mechanics vs. removing them, justifying that they're mindless and mundane) and agree on a compromise (like the mineral mechanic)?
"Sirlin is/was actually disappointed that SC2 appears to be "more #2 than #1" and his arguments (which I agree with) support #1." - Unentschieden
Second of all, what I meant by "asking for Blizzard to implement a cap as to how good you can get with mechanics":
I did not mean that getting rid of mundane macro-related tasks is "capping mechanics." I meant that in order to make SC2 a #1 type of game you'd have to put a cap as to how good one can get at mechanics (micro/macro/(multi-tasking)), simply because #1 type implies that one can get perfect mechanic through practice, which is not possible in #2 type.
Sirlin's disappoitment with SC2's being #2 is identical to saying you want Blizzard to cap how good one can get at micro/macro.
And thridly, I don't know what you meant by this:
"The Blizzard from 10 years ago did just this: The 12 unit cap was a answer to a imba strat: rushing. Instead of making rushing fair they wanted to limit the players ability to do said strategy. They quickly realised that they had to balance it anyway, can you tell why?" - Unentschieden
|
To clear up a misconception: Nobody is perfect at fighting game mechanics. Some people come close. Definitely closer than anyone comes in Starcraft. Sirlin certainly doesn't though. I can see videos of top japanese players, and I can still see mechanical mistakes or deficiencies...
Also remember, Sirlin is the fellow who went so far as violating his own playing-to-win philosophy to support the banning of roll-canceling in CvS2, mainly because it was something that emphasized mechanical skill over "strategy".
|
What has unit cap have to do with rushing? o_O
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 03 2008 13:49 Bill307 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2008 05:49 .risingdragoon wrote:
Street Fighter, for all its layers of counters, is not gonna fill stadiums. I'll leave you to wonder why this is. To me, the level of multitasking in itself is worthy of spectator appreciation. Reduce it, and you cheapen every aspect of the game from playing to winning. You are an idiot.First of all, Street Fighter does fill stadiums. (there's no game footage in this one, but look at 4:30 onwards to see a view of the arena) Furthermore, the crowd makes a lot more noise during Street Fighter compared to StarCraft. (this video is of last year's finals) That should tell you something about the game's suitability for spectators. And these games gather crowds not just in Japan, but also in the US and in Europe. Again you can hear the large crowd going nuts. These may not be stadiums, but there were easily over 200 people at each event, and events like these happen every few months in North America, where people travel from all across the continent to attend them. Lastly, lol @ multitasking alone being worthy of spectator appreciation. How many of the tens of thousands of casual StarCraft spectators in Korea do you think appreciate multitasking?
I'm happy that SF fills stadiums, and that Tougeki vod shows a really sweet setup (looks like a regular professional fight, except the ring is replaced with the arcade cabinets ).
However, I don't see how you can say the crowd "makes a lot more noise" than for SC? I mean, not only didn't it seem like they did to me (it seemed about the same, which again seems about the same with most sports), but I'm not sure if you can compare it? The games are differently paced (ie an SC match lasts a good deal longer than a SF match, and by their very design any RTS game is going to have more 'downtime' than a fighting game) and held in different types of stadiums.
Multitasking can probably be appreciated by even the most casual fan when it takes the form of something like boxer's tripple drop or something like that, although that's obviously not what you meant
|
Yeah, I don't think that what Blii307 mentioned can compare to 100k peopel showing live to watch PL finals, and such. ;p
|
i remember seeing many cafes with ppl almost having orgasms when talking about 최연성 macro
or 이윤열 multitask.
|
On December 03 2008 16:42 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2008 15:44 Unentschieden wrote:On December 03 2008 08:27 maybenexttime wrote:
Unentschieden, you can't be disappointed that SC2 is #2 and support #1 - that's asking for Blizzard to implement a cap as to how good you can get with mechanics - not gonna happen.
And if there's no cap to mechanics like there is in SF, then they're not a hurdle but an equally important skill. You can´t be serious. Do you really think thats my point? Also, please read the OP again to see where "we" (the ones agreeing with the OP) are trying to set "limits". It´s NOT technical skill. It´s useless busywork that is effectivly equal among players and just serve to keep beginners out of the game. The Blizzard from 10 years ago did just this: The 12 unit cap was a answer to a imba strat: rushing. Instead of making rushing fair they wanted to limit the players ability to do said strategy. They quickly realised that they had to balance it anyway, can you tell why? I think you're reading my post wrong. "Sirlin is/was actually disappointed that SC2 appears to be "more #2 than #1" and his arguments (which I agree with) support #1." - Unentschieden "Unentschieden, you can't be disappointed that SC2 is #2" - MaybeNextTime That's a general 'you' - I didn't mean you specifically. " It´s NOT technical skill. It´s useless busywork that is effectivly equal among players and just serve to keep beginners out of the game." - Unentschieden First of all, you can continously get more efficient at these "repetitive, mindless busywork." So it is an acquired skill. The problem with SC's manual-mining/SBS macro is that - despite decision making associated with it as far as choosing when to pay your attention to them (i.e. cyclical, mundane macro tasks) - they are devoid of decision making within themselves (the mechanical routines like going through the buildings and manually telling workers to mine, that is). As for their being "useless" - they are not. They play a significant role in SC1's gameplay (emphisize micro-to-macro multi-tasking/decision making, time/attention management, rhythm, and largely prevent the snowball effect from occuring). Can you alter those mundane, mindless tasks into something that requires thought but retains SC1's frentic intensity/physical demands? For god's sake, YES! Then why not stop arguing about taking either of the extreme paths (keeping the old mechanics vs. removing them, justifying that they're mindless and mundane) and agree on a compromise (like the mineral mechanic)? "Sirlin is/was actually disappointed that SC2 appears to be "more #2 than #1" and his arguments (which I agree with) support #1." - Unentschieden
We had this argument already andI agreed, thats why I refered to the other thread. Lets just drop this point in THIS thread.
On December 03 2008 16:42 maybenexttime wrote:
Second of all, what I meant by "asking for Blizzard to implement a cap as to how good you can get with mechanics":
I did not mean that getting rid of mundane macro-related tasks is "capping mechanics." I meant that in order to make SC2 a #1 type of game you'd have to put a cap as to how good one can get at mechanics (micro/macro/(multi-tasking)), simply because #1 type implies that one can get perfect mechanic through practice, which is not possible in #2 type.
Sirlin's disappoitment with SC2's being #2 is identical to saying you want Blizzard to cap how good one can get at micro/macro.
I have to admit, by now I´m confused about #1 and #2 and #whatever. What I was trying to say is that suggesting anyone wants a micro/macro cap i silly - especially Sirlin.
What was meant is that a type of game should avoid "distinction skills" with high "requirements", little player interaction(both) and high "payoffs".
Try to avoid stuff that is hard to do, boring to do AND worthwhile to do (if it wasn´t only obsessive perfectionists wouldn´t ignore it - how big is the real advantage of splittin your first 4 workers?)
On December 03 2008 16:42 maybenexttime wrote:
And thridly, I don't know what you meant by this:
"The Blizzard from 10 years ago did just this: The 12 unit cap was a answer to a imba strat: rushing. Instead of making rushing fair they wanted to limit the players ability to do said strategy. They quickly realised that they had to balance it anyway, can you tell why?" - Unentschieden
The point is that they attemted to weaken a strategy by making it hard to perform. But that simply gave the advantage to the players that managed to "overcome the interface" and by today many would argue that SC UI ever was a hurdle in the first place.
|
what is the obsession with applying the starcraft mechanics with sc2? its going to be a different game. Yeah a little bit of macro is going to be taken out, but like another poster said sc2 is going to be more dynamic, with it being easier to attack different points of the map. Its not like all the macro is being taken out of the game. I feel the game will be much more exciting for spectators. Instead of saying, "wow look at him in that battle while still making more units" (which is very hard for a novice to see or appreciate), people will be saying something like, "wow it looks like he is attacking everywhere on the map at once."
|
On December 03 2008 21:09 the.dude wrote:
what is the obsession with applying the starcraft mechanics with sc2? its going to be a different game. Yeah a little bit of macro is going to be taken out, but like another poster said sc2 is going to be more dynamic, with it being easier to attack different points of the map. Its not like all the macro is being taken out of the game. I feel the game will be much more exciting for spectators. Instead of saying, "wow look at him in that battle while still making more units" (which is very hard for a novice to see or appreciate), people will be saying something like, "wow it looks like he is attacking everywhere on the map at once."
Can you, please, refrain from posting useless straw mans?
You're grossly oversimplifying the issue at hand. Just stop.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 03 2008 21:09 the.dude wrote:
what is the obsession with applying the starcraft mechanics with sc2? its going to be a different game. Yeah a little bit of macro is going to be taken out, but like another poster said sc2 is going to be more dynamic, with it being easier to attack different points of the map. Its not like all the macro is being taken out of the game. I feel the game will be much more exciting for spectators. Instead of saying, "wow look at him in that battle while still making more units" (which is very hard for a novice to see or appreciate), people will be saying something like, "wow it looks like he is attacking everywhere on the map at once."
A lot of other things have to be right in order to facilitate gameplay in which you are "attacking everywhere at once".
If the game develops in such a way (that is, if it's the best way to play in the various matchups) then that's great, but we don't know that it will.
|
its just an example, probably a lame one. its hard to say what the competitive sc2 games will look like, what moves in the game will be awe inspiring. maybenexttime, how did i misrepresent your argument? do you know what a strawman is? or do you just like throwing words out when someone has a different view point that diverges from your own?
|
Off topic:
how come sc isn't popular in japan? japan is, after all like THE place to be when it comes to videogames etc. perhaps because it's an american game? and because they're more into console games?
If I could think of one nation where e-sports could take off it would be japan :o.
Sorry for going off topic!!!
edit: started thinking about this when I saw those SF videos...
|
Yes, they're into consoles/arcades.
The main reason why PC gaming and not console gaming took off in Korea is their animosity towards Japan after WW2, as far as I know.
|
Yea, also japanese doesnt seem to favor the gritty looks of many famous PC games
Take a look at Final Fantasy XI, the game is like a carnival parade, and its full of japs
|
|
|
On December 03 2008 13:49 Bill307 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2008 05:49 .risingdragoon wrote:
Street Fighter, for all its layers of counters, is not gonna fill stadiums. I'll leave you to wonder why this is. To me, the level of multitasking in itself is worthy of spectator appreciation. Reduce it, and you cheapen every aspect of the game from playing to winning. You are an idiot.First of all, Street Fighter does fill stadiums. (there's no game footage in this one, but look at 4:30 onwards to see a view of the arena) Furthermore, the crowd makes a lot more noise during Street Fighter compared to StarCraft. (this video is of last year's finals) That should tell you something about the game's suitability for spectators. And these games gather crowds not just in Japan, but also in the US and in Europe. Again you can hear the large crowd going nuts. These may not be stadiums, but there were easily over 200 people at each event, and events like these happen every few months in North America, where people travel from all across the continent to attend them. Lastly, lol @ multitasking alone being worthy of spectator appreciation. How many of the tens of thousands of casual StarCraft spectators in Korea do you think appreciate multitasking?
lol get da fuk outta here. I repeat, GTFO
A gathering of a few hundred dedicated gamers is not the same as a gathering of casual spectators. That's like comparing a lan to a baseball game.
You don't seem to know the difference b/w broad and niche appeal, where people of all ages (family with babies in hand, etc.) show up to watch sc and a few sf-playing adolescents showing up for irregular matches. Shiiit, you'd see the same couple of people in the seats if you hold that kind of stuff more than once.
|
Idiots who come in here trumpeting how SC2 is different from SC BLAH BLAH BLAH should gtfo.
People did the same for WC3, saying that it's a different game, and because it's different, we have no way of analyzing it as we did for SC.
Guess what? WC3 was an awful competitive game that was majorly reworked in TFT. And we know for a fact now that TFT is a shallower and less interesting game (for all the reasons that people explained 4 years ago) than SC.
That is why we can talk about what's wrong with SC2. Because there are people who understand how the _fundamental_ mechanics of RTS work. Just because you have no fucking clue doesn't mean there aren't people who do.
|
On December 03 2008 15:42 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2008 09:57 onepost wrote:On December 03 2008 06:19 maybenexttime wrote:On December 03 2008 06:10 exeprime wrote:
All this hate is ridiculous. Will a few less clicks destroy the game? Is 1dddzz so much worse than 1d2d3d4z5z? Automine *might* be a bit worse but having 3-4 idle workers isn't *such* a tragedy in BW mid / late game unless you happen to be a korean progamer or something, and I'm sure they'll have plenty of other things on their mind.
After all, lots of much more important macro aspects will still be there - putting down buildings / positioning them, getting expansions, transferring workers, researching upgrades, etc
MBS will just mean more free hotkeys for troops, and automine... I doubt it will be anywhere near as relevant as everyone thinks it will be. It's not about "a few less clicks." Can all you pro UI changes people stop perpetuating that nonsense? It's about: - rhythm - micro-to-macro multi-tasking - micro-to-macro decision making - time/attention management - UI changes removing the negative feedback in terms of expanding If you don't know what those mean, then that's because you're uneducated on the issue, and thus should not post in any thread regarding it unless you stop being ignorant and educate yourself. I know quite a few fields (like economics or politics) with their hordes of pseudo-experts throwing similar buzzwords as arguments, and they too claim that if you understand nothing to their purposefully obfuscating verbiage then you have no right to argue against them. I've never found that kind of argument very convincing. They are not buzzwords. If you don't know what they mean (which you apparently do not) then refer to numerous MBS/auto-mining threads instead of deliberately derailing the thread. Could you refrain from downplaying my post out of sheer ignorance? I'm not going to explain them every damn time some ignorant like you accuses me of using buzzwords. I couldn't care less what someone as lazy as you thinks, tbh.
If that makes you stop being an arrogant asshole thinking that everyone who disagrees with him is an idiotic thread derailer:
- rhythm:
Vague. Used to define command input not going out of sync.
- micro-to-macro multi-tasking:
Focusing on both macro and micro, not on one to the detriment of the other. Typical quote: "He microed so much that he forgot to macro."
- micro-to-macro decision making:
Striking the most efficient balance between focusing on macro or micro tasks, assuming you cannot cope.
- time/attention management:
Keeping track of all that happens on a map and anticipating where your attention will be most needed next.
- UI changes removing the negative feedback in terms of expanding:
Random string of buzzwords, or so the flagrant misuse of the word "feedback" suggests; I refer you to a dictionary.
You should have taken the hint when I mentioned economics and politics: jargon does not throw me off.
Now that you have the proof that you're talking to someone who understands the concepts involved (yet still disagrees with you), will you finally care to make a point, instead of downplaying everyone else's? Thank you in advance.
|
Rarrr this thread is about to explode. Comparing the easier controls of a fighting game to MBS/Automine or what have you doesn't work at all. Like everyone's said earlier in the thread, the point of easing up the controls in sirlin turbo was to give new players an easier time getting good with execution. The thing is, you can get away with that in 2d fighters because the skill gap in terms of execution is so small to begin with. Anyone who plays street fighter for over a small time period can consistently dragon punch or tiger knee or super. Anyone who feels competitive shouldn't have too much difficulty learning how to cr.mk->super. Cutting the skill gap between something that takes a couple weeks to learn is hard to compare to something that takes years to master.
It's impossible to compare the two games, but the fact that they're both still so competitive after more than a decade attests to how good they are.
|
On December 04 2008 01:43 naventus wrote:
Idiots who come in here trumpeting how SC2 is different from SC BLAH BLAH BLAH should gtfo.
People did the same for WC3, saying that it's a different game, and because it's different, we have no way of analyzing it as we did for SC.
Guess what? WC3 was an awful competitive game that was majorly reworked in TFT. And we know for a fact now that TFT is a shallower and less interesting game (for all the reasons that people explained 4 years ago) than SC.
That is why we can talk about what's wrong with SC2. Because there are people who understand how the _fundamental_ mechanics of RTS work. Just because you have no fucking clue doesn't mean there aren't people who do.
I think you're going a bit too far with your hatred here and your statements are very much exaggerated.
|
On December 04 2008 01:53 onepost wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2008 15:42 maybenexttime wrote:On December 03 2008 09:57 onepost wrote:On December 03 2008 06:19 maybenexttime wrote:On December 03 2008 06:10 exeprime wrote:
All this hate is ridiculous. Will a few less clicks destroy the game? Is 1dddzz so much worse than 1d2d3d4z5z? Automine *might* be a bit worse but having 3-4 idle workers isn't *such* a tragedy in BW mid / late game unless you happen to be a korean progamer or something, and I'm sure they'll have plenty of other things on their mind.
After all, lots of much more important macro aspects will still be there - putting down buildings / positioning them, getting expansions, transferring workers, researching upgrades, etc
MBS will just mean more free hotkeys for troops, and automine... I doubt it will be anywhere near as relevant as everyone thinks it will be. It's not about "a few less clicks." Can all you pro UI changes people stop perpetuating that nonsense? It's about: - rhythm - micro-to-macro multi-tasking - micro-to-macro decision making - time/attention management - UI changes removing the negative feedback in terms of expanding If you don't know what those mean, then that's because you're uneducated on the issue, and thus should not post in any thread regarding it unless you stop being ignorant and educate yourself. I know quite a few fields (like economics or politics) with their hordes of pseudo-experts throwing similar buzzwords as arguments, and they too claim that if you understand nothing to their purposefully obfuscating verbiage then you have no right to argue against them. I've never found that kind of argument very convincing. They are not buzzwords. If you don't know what they mean (which you apparently do not) then refer to numerous MBS/auto-mining threads instead of deliberately derailing the thread. Could you refrain from downplaying my post out of sheer ignorance? I'm not going to explain them every damn time some ignorant like you accuses me of using buzzwords. I couldn't care less what someone as lazy as you thinks, tbh. If that makes you stop being an arrogant asshole thinking that everyone who disagrees with him is an idiotic thread derailer: - rhythm: Vague. Used to define command input not going out of sync. - micro-to-macro multi-tasking: Focusing on both macro and micro, not on one to the detriment of the other. Typical quote: "He microed so much that he forgot to macro." - micro-to-macro decision making: Striking the most efficient balance between focusing on macro or micro tasks, assuming you cannot cope. - time/attention management: Keeping track of all that happens on a map and anticipating where your attention will be most needed next. - UI changes removing the negative feedback in terms of expanding: Random string of buzzwords, or so the flagrant misuse of the word "feedback" suggests; I refer you to a dictionary. You should have taken the hint when I mentioned economics and politics: jargon does not throw me off.
So as you've just proved, they are not buzzwords.
I'm not going to write a paragraph describing each one of them just because you're not content with my "verbiage."
I'm not going to repeat myself and explain why the UI changes Blizzard is implementing will negatively impact the gameplay traits represented by these "buzzwords." It's perfectly clear to anyone who's been following the MBS discussions and related topics, and you're just trying to be an ass.
And you still don't seem to know what negative feedback in expanding means. Maybe you should do some digging yourself instead of referring me to a dictionary, smartass.
Now that you have the proof that you're talking to someone who understands the concepts involved (yet still disagrees with you), will you finally care to make a point, instead of downplaying everyone else's? Thank you in advance.
And what exactly do you disagree with?
Again, I've made my point in several other threads and I don't feel like repeating myself just because some ignorant tells me to and accuses of using buzzwords.
Go troll somewhere else.
/ignore
|
he is offensive but his words carry the truth
|
Sweden33719 Posts
To everyone: Chill out or this will get closed. Calling people idiots, ignorants, etc, will lead nowhere other than to a flamewar. I prefer not closing this thread, but if I have to - c'est la vie.
Random string of buzzwords, or so the flagrant misuse of the word "feedback" suggests; I refer you to a dictionary.
I haven't a clue if it's the proper usage of the word feedback or not, but what he means is that without MBS/Automining, the more bases you take, the harder it gets to keep them all running smoothly.
With MBS you can go 0p and have your 4 expansions all produce probes.
Anyway, I don't really know how big of an impact it actually has, seeing as how you generally take expansions one at a time (or maybe two at once after the first one), and workers are mostly maynarded there.
|
From my experience expos aren't usually saturated after maynarding, though.
And it's 0p times as many Nexi you have.
And I wouldn't call anyone ignorant if it weren't for the sheer ignorance (duh) in his post. Do I really have to repeat my points in every single thread and explain the terminology just because one person couldn't be bothered to read them?
In this case he knew what they meant, posted some baseless accusations, said he disagreed but didn't even mention what he disagreed with, and then continued to be annoying. T___T
I guess I'll just ignore his future posts. ;]
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Well it wasn't directed specifically at you, just the tone in general was becoming a bit aggressive in here.
|
On December 04 2008 01:43 naventus wrote:
Idiots who come in here trumpeting how SC2 is different from SC BLAH BLAH BLAH should gtfo.
People did the same for WC3, saying that it's a different game, and because it's different, we have no way of analyzing it as we did for SC.
Guess what? WC3 was an awful competitive game that was majorly reworked in TFT. And we know for a fact now that TFT is a shallower and less interesting game (for all the reasons that people explained 4 years ago) than SC.
That is why we can talk about what's wrong with SC2. Because there are people who understand how the _fundamental_ mechanics of RTS work. Just because you have no fucking clue doesn't mean there aren't people who do.
i think the sc competitive scene didn't really take off until after the expansion was released. There is probably a great chance that sc2 will be blah on the competitive scene at the initial release, usually games mature better as the expansions come out. WC3 is still a very good game, and frankly outside s.korea it is more popular then sc:bw.
|
On a side note: I'm seeing an increasing number of posts, even whole threads, calling others ignorant with sheer contempt. Could we all drop that habit? It's turning every conversation into a dialogue of deafs and mutes. Thank you.
=>Just to make sure: maynarding is worker split, right? I've never seen that word before.
=>About WC3: It's so different a game from SC, even though it too is an RTS, that I wouldn't make deep comparisons between them. Whatever SC2 ends up looking like, it won't be WC3, if only because of what we have seen until now, and because these games are destined to different audiences.
|
i wouldn't say different audiences. A lot of wc3 players will switch to sc2 and are excited for it to come out. I'm very hopeful the game is going to be a giant success because it will bring much of the sc base and wc3 base together.
|
Comparing the easier controls of a fighting game to MBS/Automine Pardon?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Maynarding means bringing workers from one base to another, it's named after the old school gosu Maynard ;P
On December 04 2008 06:04 L wrote: Pardon?
I don't think he means fighting games have easier controls, but the original article talks about simplifying the controls of fighting games (something Sirlin apparently did when working on SF2 Turbo HD Remix), which was compared to the addition of things like MBS and automining to Sc2.
|
On December 02 2008 00:07 Zoler wrote:
Dont whine before you played the game!!!!!
SC2 is totally awesome. It will be the best game ever. I promise. The graphics are awesome, not bad. MBS is okay, btw I was the biggest anti MBS guy ever before I played it.
The only problems so far is a few AI bugs but it will be fixed.
Blizzard I LOVE YOU!!! You are the only company that REALLY listen to your gamers!!!! THANK YOU
haha, true or not? =D
|
mostly not
i only believe in ppl that talk things similar to my sign
|
the.dude cant win. He's entitled to his opinion. Seems like his original point was that SC2 is a new game and will be different from SC1. The guy that called him an idiot and to gtfo was the one who injected WC3. So after the.dude responds to the WC3 stuff, someone else disagrees with him because WC3 is so different a game from SC (which strangely enough is related to what he was originally saying).
We need to enter into these discussions with humility. We all know how many years it took SC1 to reach an acceptable state. Before it came out people had their opinions based on their experiences with WC2. But really, everyone was to some degree "ignorant" about SC1 for many years after it's release. A good first step to take before contributing to these discussions is to acknowledge we are all somewhat ignorant about SC2 and probably will remain so until 2010 or 2011.
|
On December 04 2008 08:05 oki wrote:
the.dude
I honestly just tried to make a b.net account on west with this name.
lol too bad someone took it.
We need to enter into these discussions with humility.
QFT
Humility = one of the best qualities for a person to have, one of the hardest ones to obtain, and one of the most overlooked/neglected ones in modern society.
In short, humility = win.
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On December 03 2008 18:58 maybenexttime wrote:
Yeah, I don't think that what Blii307 mentioned can compare to 100k peopel showing live to watch PL finals, and such. ;p
On December 04 2008 01:11 .risingdragoon wrote:lol get da fuk outta here. I repeat, GTFO A gathering of a few hundred dedicated gamers is not the same as a gathering of casual spectators. That's like comparing a lan to a baseball game. You don't seem to know the difference b/w broad and niche appeal, where people of all ages (family with babies in hand, etc.) show up to watch sc and a few sf-playing adolescents showing up for irregular matches. Shiiit, you'd see the same couple of people in the seats if you hold that kind of stuff more than once.
Sure StarCraft has an order of magnitude more fans in Korea.
Now explain why that makes it a better game, or a more appealing game.
There are other factors that affect the # of people who watch a sport / e-sport.
|
Wow, that probably the first thing I've ever heard Sirlin say that I didn't agree with in the OP. If the game is better with easier moves, why not just make everything 1 button and put a button for every move..
|
I Just read the OP, so I apologize if this is redundant. Your theory is completely wrong. 99.99% of starcraft players have yet to master basic build orders and micro/macro execution. Amateur games are almost entirely decided by who has better micro/macro/build order. I know we'd like to think we are all master strategists when we play, but in reality we are just mimicking pros or we would lose. Even NonY admits that his game is entirely based off of replicating progamer builds and reactions. Of course, at the amateur level we can try to play mind games on our opponents and come up with our own strategies, but statistically if you focus on these elements you'll lose. This is what angers players who come from other RTS's: haven't you heard people say "I don't like starcraft because it's all about building a shitload of units and throwing them at your opponent." Only once you have mastered the mechanics of starcraft can you begin to effectively pay attention to what your opponent is thinking about.
Which brings me to my point: if most of the appeal of starcraft was in the mind games and dynamic strategy adaptation, then people like us on TL.net would not be enjoying the game. The appeal of Starcraft is more on the intense, walking on eggshells gameplay where the game outcome can shift in a mere 3 seconds (the time it takes for a storm drop to kill a pile of workers) and executing crazy strategies.
The game of Starcraft would (will) change dramatically with things like MBS and automine, just because taking difficult mechanics out removes 90% of what you are doing in every game of Starcraft. Whether that's for the better or for the worse, well, we'll just have to see.
|
On December 01 2008 15:06 Love.Zelduck wrote:Most of us here on TL.net (I think) are worried (at least somewhat) that Starcraft II will be a game that is overly automated/plays itself/is too noob friendly/takes less skill than BW/etc. However, this fear is usually rooted in the belief that one of the chief appeals of Starcraft is in the skill of execution that can be achieved after years of training and massgaming. I'd like to propose that even with MBS and automine in the game, what makes Starcraft truly amazing both to play and to watch isn't how hard it is to macro off of 4 bases, but how hard it is to out-think, out-maneuver, out-tech, out-expand, and golden-mouse-July-style out-mindgame your opponent. The following is David Sirlin's rationale for why he made the execution of moves in Street Fighter easier. Sirlin is one of the top US ST (Super Street Fighter II Turbo) players and the lead designer of Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix. Show nested quote +On November 11 2008 11:11 David Sirlin wrote:
Easier Controls
Inside Street Fighter, there is a wonderful battle of wits, but many potential players are locked out of experiencing it because they can't dragon punch or do Fei Long's flying kicks, or whatever other joystick gymnastics. I'm reversing the trend. There's only so far I can go with this and still call it SF2, but wherever I could, I turned the knob towards easy execution of moves. Let's emphasize good decision making—the true core of competitive games—and get rid of artificially difficult commands.
This will get more players interested in the game, eventually leading to more competition. It will also get players past the awkward beginner phase faster and into the intermediate phase where the interesting strategy starts to emerge.
There are some players who wrongly believe that this "dumbs the game down." Actually, the opposite is true. Experts can perform special moves already, so the changes listed below have very little effect on them. Experts will care about actual balance changes such as hitboxes, recovery times, new properties for some moves, and so on. Making special moves easier, however, just allows everyone else to play the "real" game without needing to develop hundreds of hours of muscle memory just to perform the moves. It's actually sad to hear that some players think that their ability to execute a 360 command throw is why they are good, as opposed to the actual strategy of getting close enough to the opponent with Zangief to land the throw.
Another wrong-headed comment I often get is that easier controls don't leave enough skills in the game to separate good and bad players. The statement is absurd. Easier special moves don't change the strategic depth of the game at all (and the actual balance changes in HD Remix hopefully increase the strategic depth). Furthermore, there's no shortage of nuance for experts. Does Cammy's dragon punch beat Fei Longs? It depends on exactly who did it first, which means that 1/60th of a second timing is just as important as ever. So is positioning, spacing, the difficulty of performing combos, and the skill of reading the mind of the opponent.
I think I'm with the majority here (maybe) when I say I'd prefer that they leave automine and the gas mechanic out, but even with these in, I believe that Starcraft 2 will be inclusive to Starcraft vets, WC3 players, and new players alike. The highest levels of play honestly won't be damaged if some stuff is automated (but let's not get carried away) because after all, what truly separates the gold medalist from the silver medalist is his drive, his passion, his game knowledge, his ingenuity, his unpredictability, his ability to read and fake out his opponent, and his champion-like qualities. Our most beloved Starcraft heroes are not revered for training >9000 hours a week to be able to multitask at 400+ apm. They are revered for their style, their ingenuity, and their ability to produce amazing Starcraft. All in all, don't worry too much. Starcraft 2 will be great, we'll all play it, and it'll be fun. Thanks for reading.
not worried at all
|
On December 05 2008 10:14 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:
I Just read the OP, so I apologize if this is redundant. Your theory is completely wrong. 99.99% of starcraft players have yet to master basic build orders and micro/macro execution. Amateur games are almost entirely decided by who has better micro/macro/build order. I know we'd like to think we are all master strategists when we play, but in reality we are just mimicking pros or we would lose. Even NonY admits that his game is entirely based off of replicating progamer builds and reactions. Of course, at the amateur level we can try to play mind games on our opponents and come up with our own strategies, but statistically if you focus on these elements you'll lose. This is what angers players who come from other RTS's: haven't you heard people say "I don't like starcraft because it's all about building a shitload of units and throwing them at your opponent." Only once you have mastered the mechanics of starcraft can you begin to effectively pay attention to what your opponent is thinking about.
Which brings me to my point: if most of the appeal of starcraft was in the mind games and dynamic strategy adaptation, then people like us on TL.net would not be enjoying the game. The appeal of Starcraft is more on the intense, walking on eggshells gameplay where the game outcome can shift in a mere 3 seconds (the time it takes for a storm drop to kill a pile of workers) and executing crazy strategies.
The game of Starcraft would (will) change dramatically with things like MBS and automine, just because taking difficult mechanics out removes 90% of what you are doing in every game of Starcraft. Whether that's for the better or for the worse, well, we'll just have to see.
The facts you bring are debatable, but that's not what I truly disagree about. Starcraft is also a con game, more than most realize or acknowledge. For example:
=>We show and hide buildings at our convenience. Sometimes we hide buildings at very remote places to make sure the opponent does not see them. Other times we let the opponent scout, then cancel buildings and upgrades for similar purposes.
=>Cheese depends as much on psychology as on mechanical skills. In fact, when to cheese in a bo3/5 tournament round, and how, is itself decided by psychology.
=>Tech switching also is a mean to con your opponent, when used to inflict surprising counterattacks. One classic is to make a few dark templars just to make the opponent freak out, then instead you just macro up. Or a spire but no mutalisks.
=>Retreat to better flank and surround is an age-old trap.
=>Ruse can take many forms. One of these is to fly around with an empty shuttle to drive mutalisks away from your base and gain time. Another is to make a sneak expo and pretend that you're in trouble at your main, making your opponent overconfident. Burrowing hydralisks near a helpless overlord is an effective corsair trap.
And so on. I only stop here because I'm tired and it's bedtime. [Zzz]
There's already a lot of head games in SC, and there shall be even more in SC2. Just think of hallucinations, for example, that are underused in SC but shall last longer in SC2. We'll also have to worry more about nuke rushes, and not only on Battle.net attacks. I'm expecting a lot in that area.
|
I dunno, I guess I always thought that tough button combinations in fighting games were supposed to mimic the requirement of practice as in real life martial arts. You couldn't just do them normally, but with practice, that's why they are the special moves. Am I wrong?
|
On December 05 2008 13:53 A3iL3r0n wrote:
I dunno, I guess I always thought that tough button combinations in fighting games were supposed to mimic the requirement of practice as in real life martial arts. You couldn't just do them normally, but with practice, that's why they are the special moves. Am I wrong?
I think that you should also feel physical pain after you get hit, just so we can mimic real life martial arts.
What the hell kind of argument is this?
|
On December 05 2008 15:39 Koof wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2008 13:53 A3iL3r0n wrote:
I dunno, I guess I always thought that tough button combinations in fighting games were supposed to mimic the requirement of practice as in real life martial arts. You couldn't just do them normally, but with practice, that's why they are the special moves. Am I wrong? I think that you should also feel physical pain after you get hit, just so we can mimic real life martial arts. What the hell kind of argument is this?
I think A3iL3r0n has a valid argument, but it applies to single player games where you get satisfaction on improving your skill.
In multiplayer, the skill gap in fighting games is already present in game knowledge and reaction speed and whatnot. The button mashing skill is only a hindrance keeping a large part of the population from trying their best on the other skills.
I think this as an argument does transfer to starcraft, but I can't say for sure it's a valid point for bms/automine. The other skills for starcraft must be very important, so as to retain a certain difficulty level to being really good at the game with bms/automine included.
|
Omg guys whats wrong with you? Do you really think that MBS, automining, idle workers warning etc will make you gosu? I mean think about this. Do you really think that if bliz makes 1.18 patch for SCBW with all those SC2 features, I will be able to beat pros? Or As, or Bs ?? Thats some bullshit. Cause good players will benefit from thos new features as well, meaning they will have more time to micro, work out their strategy etc. Think about what you say first.
ps. In other words C in SC2 will be worse from C in SCBW. But if you are A in SCBW, you will be like A+++ in SC2. Get it ?
|
On December 05 2008 20:29 herda wrote:
Omg guys whats wrong with you? Do you really think that MBS, automining, idle workers warning etc will make you gosu? I mean think about this. Do you really think that if bliz makes 1.18 patch for SCBW with all those SC2 features, I will be able to beat pros? Or As, or Bs ?? Thats some bullshit. Cause good players will benefit from thos new features as well, meaning they will have more time to micro, work out their strategy etc. Think about what you say first.
ps. In other words C in SC2 will be worse from C in SCBW. But if you are A in SCBW, you will be like A+++ in SC2. Get it ?
fail.
you refuse to see the problem plus you dont seem to have enough knowledge about sc bonus: return to b.net forums or w/e ur belong
|
On December 05 2008 20:49 Ki_Do wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2008 20:29 herda wrote:
Omg guys whats wrong with you? Do you really think that MBS, automining, idle workers warning etc will make you gosu? I mean think about this. Do you really think that if bliz makes 1.18 patch for SCBW with all those SC2 features, I will be able to beat pros? Or As, or Bs ?? Thats some bullshit. Cause good players will benefit from thos new features as well, meaning they will have more time to micro, work out their strategy etc. Think about what you say first.
ps. In other words C in SC2 will be worse from C in SCBW. But if you are A in SCBW, you will be like A+++ in SC2. Get it ? fail. you refuse to see the problem plus you dont seem to have enough knowledge about sc bonus: return to b.net forums or w/e ur belong
Troll detected. I never played on Bnet or w/e you belong. Iccup is my home.
|
On December 05 2008 20:29 herda wrote:Cause good players will benefit from thos new features as well, meaning they will have more time to micro, work out their strategy etc. Think about what you say first.
I work on my strategy between macro cycles too. wanna F- battle on iccup with me?
|
seriously, macroing rly take that amount of time that u cant work out ur strategy?
i always thought it was only a f2 click m click m click m as fast as your apm goes and then you focus on your units again...it takes like 3 - 6 seconds if u got 200ish to complete macro stages with like 6+ upb
|
On December 05 2008 10:14 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:
The game of Starcraft would (will) change dramatically with things like MBS and automine, just because taking difficult mechanics out removes 90% of what you are doing in every game of Starcraft. Whether that's for the better or for the worse, well, we'll just have to see.
I guess I always did it wrong. I always tried to MINIMIZE the time spend on unit production and peon ordering.
|
On December 05 2008 22:45 Ki_Do wrote:
seriously, macroing rly take that amount of time that u cant work out ur strategy?
i always thought it was only a f2 click m click m click m as fast as your apm goes and then you focus on your units again...it takes like 3 - 6 seconds if u got 200ish to complete macro stages with like 6+ upb
Taking into account starcraft's game-pace, that's a considerable amount of time that could be spent on working out strategy. By working I don't mean *thinking* about strategy, of course. I mean executing it. When you do "f2 click m click m click m, select worker, send to minerals" you're not executing any strategy, because it doesn't depend on any at all. This is the culprit. When player is forced to do non-sensual things which only purpose is to take away time from much more fun and seemingly important things it leads to very frustrating experience for player.
All what need to be done is to somehow turn actions that doesn't depend on game-plan or depend only indirectly into ones, which directly and in a obvious way impact players strategy and, in our case, macro.
For Zerg, good example would be Spawning Creep and Nydus Worming with Overlords/Overseers. If this abilities are made viable enough (in sense, players who constantly use them have bigger advantage over opponent than players who use them rarely) and if they are properly balanced (i.e. opponent can somehow cancel out this abilities once they were used, so player is forced to regularly reuse them), then it will add good amount of macro actions for Zerg and that's exactly what we need.
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On December 05 2008 13:53 A3iL3r0n wrote:
I dunno, I guess I always thought that tough button combinations in fighting games were supposed to mimic the requirement of practice as in real life martial arts. You couldn't just do them normally, but with practice, that's why they are the special moves. Am I wrong?
Well, aside from the enjoyment one gets from executing a well-practiced combo correctly, special moves require joystick motions because many of them would be overpowered if they could be performed instantly with the press of a button.
For example, in most 2D fighters you have "dragon punch" type moves or super moves which are invincible and will beat almost any other attack. If these moves could be performed with a single button press, then one could press that button on reaction to any non-fast attack from the opponent and beat their attack (by "non-fast", I mean more than 6 frames (1/10th of a second) of start-up time, since that is the limit of unconscious human reaction speed). This ability would obviously take a lot of depth and fun out of the game.
But if you need to do a joystick motion first, then the amount of time you need to beat an opponent's attack on reaction is greatly increased, making the game more balanced and giving it more depth.
Furthermore, most of these joystick motions require you to leave the blocking position, leaving you vulnerable. In contrast, with 1-button special and super moves, you could simply mash on the button while blocking.
So, similar to StarCraft, making the mechanics of a fighting game easier changes its balance and its gameplay. And, beyond a certain point, it makes the game less fun as well.
However, I think most of you guys don't realize that the mechanics that Sirlin made easier were much more difficult than most of the mechanics you see in fighting games these days. Furthermore, they were random: a random number generator decided how much time you had to execute a special move! Ridiculous.
I doubt that Sirlin wants to remove mechanics from fighters completely: a minimum amount of mechanics is necessary for multiple reasons, such as the ones I gave above. Instead, he is searching for a balance: mechanics that are not too difficult to learn and to perform consistently, but also not so easy that they unbalance the game or ruin the gameplay.
We are searching for the same balance in StarCraft 2. We all seem to agree that the move from WarCraft 2's mechanics to StarCraft's was an improvement. It's just a matter of deciding what is "too easy" for a competitive RTS. And it could be completely different from what is "too easy" for a fighter.
|
well, today and yesterday, myself, FA, maybenexttime, sven, and some more guys played a fuckton of Armies of Exigo, which is an RTS very similar to SC2 (it is right in the middle between SC and Warcraft3). And I say, I don't mind MBS and automine at all. It can be still hard to macro, hard to multitask.
MBS:
in AoX, it is not exactly like in SC2. if you have 5 barracks, and you press the hotkey of footman, and you have the money to produce five footmen, your five barracks will start producing. If you have money only for one, then a not busy barrack will start producing. If all the hotkeyed barracks are busy, then the first one in the group will produce the footman.
automine:
compared to starcraft, there are less peons here, so automine has less significant effect in this game. Honestly, I like automine. My argument is, if you have an idle worker button anyway, what is the point of having no automine.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I'll just say I agree with this pretty much 100%. I never felt like "oh I have nothing to do..", and I was constantly going back to my base anyway to build farms and new production buildings or to expand.
However, there is a little bit less macro in the game (ie you dont seem to need as many production buildings or peons) so it's not identical to SC, but still.
I really enjoy the game and none of the features bother me at all, it still feels quite intense. Maps with underground terrain gives you a lot to keep track off as well, so that's nice.
|
i dont know, the macro seemed too easy in aox fa =/
|
On December 06 2008 10:27 Ki_Do wrote:
i dont know, the macro seemed too easy in aox fa =/
you said that you didnt play any multiplayer of it..
|
multiplayer isnt the only way to test macromanagement,i played skirmish and saw how many times i came to my base
|
I dont think its the general high apm which is defining the skill, but the need for high APM for certain actions etc does give you yet another factor to think about, it basically dictates how many attacks you can do at the same time, how well you can macro while your attacking etc. If the game is severely "dumbed down" and simple attackmoves will surround etc and whatnot, and there's autorally etc, a lot of these descisions will be taken out. Its not a horrible thing or something that cant be overcome, but I do regret it should it happen.
|
On December 06 2008 09:16 FrozenArbiter wrote:
I'll just say I agree with this pretty much 100%. I never felt like "oh I have nothing to do..", and I was constantly going back to my base anyway to build farms and new production buildings or to expand.
However, there is a little bit less macro in the game (ie you dont seem to need as many production buildings or peons) so it's not identical to SC, but still.
I really enjoy the game and none of the features bother me at all, it still feels quite intense. Maps with underground terrain gives you a lot to keep track off as well, so that's nice.
You guys just don't understand maaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!! It's gotta' be hard man. Gotta' be like back in 'nam. We had to bleed out our anuses to macro man! You had to bleed 'fer 'least a month before a man would look 'ya in 'th eye! Macro's gotta' be hard maaannn!! You gotta feel the pain man. Feeeeel it.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
|
|
|
On December 06 2008 11:34 Ki_Do wrote:
multiplayer isnt the only way to test macromanagement,i played skirmish and saw how many times i came to my base
It's seems like you completely don't understand the meaning of 'easy to learn hard to master' concept.
You can't test how hard something is by playing against vastly inferior player. You can't test how hard something is when you have no idea what are you supposed to test, and if you haven't heavily competed in any RTS besides SC you definitely don't now how macromanagement may look like when it's not heavily based on punishment (like in starcraft).
Now, go in Broodwar and play Zerg. Start sending your Overlords around the map and then individually clicking on them once they reach destination, like if you were activating 'spawn creep' ability. Realize, that you have to watch them carefully on minimap and if they under attack, cancel ability and move them away from attacker. You can't let them die needlessly - if they die you will lose more than 100 minerals (overseer cost more than that), you will lost supply and you will have to find Overlord, morph it in Overseer and once done, move him somewhere on the map to spawn creep.
Is it EASIER to do than to send couple workers to mine minerals once in a while? Is it EASIER to master than clicking at buildings? Please, read that and try to understand.
|
What does that zerg example have to do with anything? Are you required to spawn creep on every square inch of the map in SC2? And no, you can very easily tell how legitimately difficult a game is by playing by yourself. Starcraft macro is still fairly difficult even without an opponent.
|
On December 08 2008 03:08 NatsuTerran wrote:
And no, you can very easily tell how legitimately difficult a game is by playing by yourself. Starcraft macro is still fairly difficult even without an opponent.
Like I said, most of the starcraft macro is based on punishment. That is, most of the macro in Starcraft is a mandatory that even noobs have to do in order to play the game. That's why you can see it even when you don't have any opponent.
But everything changes once we apply "easy to learn hard to master" concept. Once we change it from being advantageous instead of being punishing, you don't need it anymore to win against inferior players. The importance and hardness get apparent only when someone uses this advantage and defeats you with it. Hence, you can't see how much skill it requires in reality without being involved in heavy competition.
For example: micro in starcraft. For the most part (ignoring unit selection limit) it's "easy to learn and hard to master". And look how it works in the game when you play vastly inferior opponent - you don't need to have a good flank, you don't need to have good storms (in fact you don't even need to use storms) and so on. And when you are playing skirmish against computers all what you have to do is literally a-move opponent to death. The only reason why you can see without playing true opponent that micro in, for example, Armies of Exigo can be potentially very hard, is because it's very similar to SC:BW micro and you experienced all the difficulty of it when you were laddering in SC:BW.
Clear enough?
What does that zerg example have to do with anything?
That zerg example is a macromanagement just like when Flash sends scvs to build turrets around the map in TvT. Spawning creep with an overseer is a macromanagement.
Are you required to spawn creep on every square inch of the map in SC2?
Having the path from your base to your opponent's base covered with creep will bring your ground units to your opponent's base 30% faster. It's much bigger advantage than you get from perfect 4z5z6z7z8z.
You figure out.
|
On December 08 2008 03:08 NatsuTerran wrote:
What does that zerg example have to do with anything? Are you required to spawn creep on every square inch of the map in SC2? And no, you can very easily tell how legitimately difficult a game is by playing by yourself. Starcraft macro is still fairly difficult even without an opponent.
Yep - is that a good thing though? That is the core issue. What is "legitimate Difficulty" in a Multiplayer centric title? How much of the "difficulty" should depend on your enemys skills and how much on the game itself? I´d prefer as much "enemybased difficulty" as possible.
Edit: Basically what InRaged said.
|
On December 08 2008 05:16 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2008 03:08 NatsuTerran wrote:
What does that zerg example have to do with anything? Are you required to spawn creep on every square inch of the map in SC2? And no, you can very easily tell how legitimately difficult a game is by playing by yourself. Starcraft macro is still fairly difficult even without an opponent. Yep - is that a good thing though? That is the core issue. What is "legitimate Difficulty" in a Multiplayer centric title? How much of the "difficulty" should depend on your enemys skills and how much on the game itself? I´d prefer as much "enemybased difficulty" as possible. Edit: Basically what InRaged said.
Go play WC3 then since there's no macro. It's obvious you don't enjoy BW for what it is. SC2 should be a lot like BW in its core elements. If it's not, then how is it a proper sequel?
Look, your argument doesn't even make sense. Both players have to contend with creating a flawless production line of macro. It's a skill. How you and your opponent match-up in this element of the game bears on the outcome. Unlike WC3, macro is a strategy in BW. How is removing almost an entire facet of the game a positive? The suggestion doesn't even have a sensible place in the discussion. Mechanics are a large part of BW.
So leave my game alone, please. I'm not trying to insult you or be elitist, because again, it's all about preference, not right or wrong. If you want MBS and automine, there are other games that already have it. Go do that, and leave my game alone.
|
Practicing macro, climbing that ladder of improvement upon my own mechanics and dexterity has been an essential part of the joy that starcraft brings me.
It is hard for me to imagine myself enjoying sc2 as much as BW without the elements of this self improvement.
I'm sure a lot of us feel this way. But i'm willing to reserve my judgment on MBS and Mind>Execution til the game comes out and i play it. Give it a chance guys
|
On December 09 2008 06:02 A3iL3r0n wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2008 05:16 Unentschieden wrote:On December 08 2008 03:08 NatsuTerran wrote:
What does that zerg example have to do with anything? Are you required to spawn creep on every square inch of the map in SC2? And no, you can very easily tell how legitimately difficult a game is by playing by yourself. Starcraft macro is still fairly difficult even without an opponent. Yep - is that a good thing though? That is the core issue. What is "legitimate Difficulty" in a Multiplayer centric title? How much of the "difficulty" should depend on your enemys skills and how much on the game itself? I´d prefer as much "enemybased difficulty" as possible. Edit: Basically what InRaged said. Go play WC3 then since there's no macro. It's obvious you don't enjoy BW for what it is. SC2 should be a lot like BW in its core elements. If it's not, then how is it a proper sequel? Look, your argument doesn't even make sense. Both players have to contend with creating a flawless production line of macro. It's a skill. How you and your opponent match-up in this element of the game bears on the outcome. Unlike WC3, macro is a strategy in BW. How is removing almost an entire facet of the game a positive? The suggestion doesn't even have a sensible place in the discussion. Mechanics are a large part of BW. So leave my game alone, please. I'm not trying to insult you or be elitist, because again, it's all about preference, not right or wrong. If you want MBS and automine, there are other games that already have it. Go do that, and leave my game alone.
Did you even read what's been written before responding? I don't want to waste time responding if you haven't read anything, so just tell, did you read posts prior to your respond? And if you did, how come it, you haven't understood a single word?
And about bringing WC3 in this discussion... go get yourself banned somehow, please.
|
On December 09 2008 06:02 A3iL3r0n wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2008 05:16 Unentschieden wrote:On December 08 2008 03:08 NatsuTerran wrote:
What does that zerg example have to do with anything? Are you required to spawn creep on every square inch of the map in SC2? And no, you can very easily tell how legitimately difficult a game is by playing by yourself. Starcraft macro is still fairly difficult even without an opponent. Yep - is that a good thing though? That is the core issue. What is "legitimate Difficulty" in a Multiplayer centric title? How much of the "difficulty" should depend on your enemys skills and how much on the game itself? I´d prefer as much "enemybased difficulty" as possible. Edit: Basically what InRaged said. Go play WC3 then since there's no macro. It's obvious you don't enjoy BW for what it is. SC2 should be a lot like BW in its core elements. If it's not, then how is it a proper sequel? Look, your argument doesn't even make sense. Both players have to contend with creating a flawless production line of macro. It's a skill. How you and your opponent match-up in this element of the game bears on the outcome. Unlike WC3, macro is a strategy in BW. How is removing almost an entire facet of the game a positive? The suggestion doesn't even have a sensible place in the discussion. Mechanics are a large part of BW. So leave my game alone, please. I'm not trying to insult you or be elitist, because again, it's all about preference, not right or wrong. If you want MBS and automine, there are other games that already have it. Go do that, and leave my game alone.
I was just wandering that perhaps it has occured to someone that actually macro in SC2 will be much the same as in SCBW as of this stage of game development.
Right now, Bisu needs to spend approximately 1 second to produce from 10 gateways, in SC2 it will take him almost the same amount of time (hotkey + 10x another key pressing). I know you won't have to go back to your base any more but while producing units from numerous production buildings which can take a couple of seconds your hands as to micro/whatever are tied.
So basically in SC2 decision between micro/macro will have the same impact on the game since macroing will still be time consuming. The only difference is that you will be able to watch the battles while doing so which opens up some interesting decisionmaking - will I gain more by producing more units or by breaking my macro to micro the units?
Just my 2 cents.
|
On December 09 2008 06:43 InRaged wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2008 06:02 A3iL3r0n wrote:On December 08 2008 05:16 Unentschieden wrote:On December 08 2008 03:08 NatsuTerran wrote:
What does that zerg example have to do with anything? Are you required to spawn creep on every square inch of the map in SC2? And no, you can very easily tell how legitimately difficult a game is by playing by yourself. Starcraft macro is still fairly difficult even without an opponent. Yep - is that a good thing though? That is the core issue. What is "legitimate Difficulty" in a Multiplayer centric title? How much of the "difficulty" should depend on your enemys skills and how much on the game itself? I´d prefer as much "enemybased difficulty" as possible. Edit: Basically what InRaged said. Go play WC3 then since there's no macro. It's obvious you don't enjoy BW for what it is. SC2 should be a lot like BW in its core elements. If it's not, then how is it a proper sequel? Look, your argument doesn't even make sense. Both players have to contend with creating a flawless production line of macro. It's a skill. How you and your opponent match-up in this element of the game bears on the outcome. Unlike WC3, macro is a strategy in BW. How is removing almost an entire facet of the game a positive? The suggestion doesn't even have a sensible place in the discussion. Mechanics are a large part of BW. So leave my game alone, please. I'm not trying to insult you or be elitist, because again, it's all about preference, not right or wrong. If you want MBS and automine, there are other games that already have it. Go do that, and leave my game alone. Did you even read what's been written before responding? I don't want to waste time responding if you haven't read anything, so just tell, did you read posts prior to your respond? And if you did, how come it, you haven't understood a single word? And about bringing WC3 in this discussion... go get yourself banned somehow, please.
I guess I missed the mark completely. Why don't you explain to me what this thread is about.
|
On December 09 2008 07:17 A3iL3r0n wrote:
I guess I missed the mark completely. Why don't you explain to me what this thread is about.
Um, how should I put it for you... You missed the point of the Unentschieden's post.
There's nothing wrong in missing the point of the thread - thread is huge and it may have many different discussions inside. That's not the problem here at all.
The problem is that you somehow managed to misinterpret five short sentences. I am sorry, I can't explain the point of them better, than I did in the post immediately above of Unentschieden's post, where he's partially referring to
And about this...
On December 09 2008 06:02 A3iL3r0n wrote:
Unlike WC3, macro is a strategy in BW. How is removing almost an entire facet of the game a positive? The suggestion doesn't even have a sensible place in the discussion. Mechanics are a large part of BW.
... did you just really said that? I mean, Really?
[edit] oh, oops. You can misread it again. Huge part of the macro is indeed a strategy in BW, but that's not why I marked this part of your post in bold
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 09 2008 07:05 Manit0u wrote:
Right now, Bisu needs to spend approximately 1 second to produce from 10 gateways, in SC2 it will take him almost the same amount of time (hotkey + 10x another key pressing). I know you won't have to go back to your base any more but while producing units from numerous production buildings which can take a couple of seconds your hands as to micro/whatever are tied.
So basically in SC2 decision between micro/macro will have the same impact on the game since macroing will still be time consuming. The only difference is that you will be able to watch the battles while doing so which opens up some interesting decisionmaking - will I gain more by producing more units or by breaking my macro to micro the units?
Just my 2 cents.
The difference is that in SC1, you have to shift visual and mental focus to production, since you have to scroll through all your gateways. In SC2, you can jam all your gateways (or even all production buildings) on a single hotkey, and just hit it without having to shift focus to your base (therefore maintaining full mental awareness of your army). In SC1, macro and micro entails a tradeoff because you have to shift focus, not because the actions are inherently time consuming, knowing when to focus on one thing or another. How is removing that a good thing?
|
The only difference is that by not shifting focus you allow players for more flexibility, is it a bad thing?
|
On December 13 2008 00:57 Manit0u wrote:
The only difference is that by not shifting focus you allow players for more flexibility, is it a bad thing?
The point being that in SC1 you have to choose between macro and micro at any given point in time. You can't do both simultaneously once you get more production buildings than you have hotkeys. This requires more multitasking and skill to do.
You're right when you say it would allow the players more "flexibility" in a sense. It would allow them to never take their mind off of micro since macro doesn't require them to divert attention away from micro. But that makes things easier. It takes away from the speed and multitasking ability required by the pros. Imagine if you could select a shuttle with HTs and it had a "Go find an expansion and storm drop it" button. It would allow the player to focus more on his/her main army instead of harassing hence more "flexibility" but is a fairly obvious decrease in skill requirement.
|
its a pity that the best games of the rts genre are the older ones
|
The best games of any genre are the older ones.... Game development is really going down the drain to appease the casual crowd who plays games like they watch movies.
|
On December 13 2008 02:17 Phyre wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2008 00:57 Manit0u wrote:
The only difference is that by not shifting focus you allow players for more flexibility, is it a bad thing? It would allow them to never take their mind off of micro since macro doesn't require them to divert attention away from micro.
But it does require from them a decision: do I micro or do I macro? This decision is even harder now because you can kind of 'change your mind' mid-macro seeing how bad your troops are faring and then you desperately drop macro and try to micro like crazy but it's too late and you're way behind because you a) didn't macro as hard as you should and/or b) you didn't micro enough/it came too late and your army is screwed.
In my opinion micro/macro decisions with the new system will require more balls then now since you will be able to switch between micro/macro more fluently thus giving way more options for both you and your oponent to exploit in order to get ahead. Timings will be even more important and getting the good balance between micro and macro in various situations will be a skill itself.
It's like going from binary to decimal. Number of new possibilities is mind-numbing.
|
On December 13 2008 02:17 Phyre wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2008 00:57 Manit0u wrote:
The only difference is that by not shifting focus you allow players for more flexibility, is it a bad thing? The point being that in SC1 you have to choose between macro and micro at any given point in time. You can't do both simultaneously once you get more production buildings than you have hotkeys. This requires more multitasking and skill to do.
Which is why you should be overjoyed to know that the worker juggling of extractor shutdowns will force exactly this behaviour!
But you are not, instead you are screaming that this do not make any sense at all and that it will just create boring repetitive tasks which do not add anything worthwhile at all.
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 13 2008 02:47 Manit0u wrote:
But it does require from them a decision: do I micro or do I macro? This decision is even harder now because you can kind of 'change your mind' mid-macro seeing how bad your troops are faring and then you desperately drop macro and try to micro like crazy but it's too late and you're way behind because you a) didn't macro as hard as you should and/or b) you didn't micro enough/it came too late and your army is screwed.
Before, you had to gauge whether or not it was safe to go back to look at your base to macro, because you couldn't watch what was going on in both places at once. Now you can macro WHILE looking at your army, just by hitting 7zzzzz, so you will know the moment microing becomes necessary. Its not a decision anymore, because the right answer is immediately apparent in every case.
On December 13 2008 02:48 Klockan3 wrote:
Which is why you should be overjoyed to know that the worker juggling of extractor shutdowns will force exactly this behaviour!
But you are not, instead you are screaming that this do not make any sense at all and that it will just create boring repetitive tasks which do not add anything worthwhile at all.
We're screaming because the new boring repetitive tasks accomplish the same thing that the old boring repetitive tasks did. The idea is that its pointless to create something new that does the same thing that the old system did anyway.
Ever heard the phrase "if it isn't broken, don't fix it?" Its been overused in relation to SC2, but its worth using here. There's no point in using a new menial task that feels unnatural in favor of an old one, that everyone's used to, especially since the new one doesn't do anything the old one didn't.
I'd be fine with the gas mechanic if they added a slow gas refill rate so that there was some strategic aspect to it beyond the multitasking (e.g. more workers on gas gets you better long-term gas mining, but worse short-term). As it stands, its just a clunkier version of automining.
|
On December 13 2008 02:57 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2008 02:48 Klockan3 wrote:
Which is why you should be overjoyed to know that the worker juggling of extractor shutdowns will force exactly this behaviour!
But you are not, instead you are screaming that this do not make any sense at all and that it will just create boring repetitive tasks which do not add anything worthwhile at all. We're screaming because the new boring repetitive tasks accomplish the same thing that the old boring repetitive tasks did. The idea is that its pointless to create something new that does the same thing that the old system did anyway. Ever heard the phrase "if it isn't broken, don't fix it?" Its been overused in relation to SC2, but its worth using here. There's no point in using a new menial task that feels unnatural in favor of an old one, that everyone's used to, especially since the new one doesn't do anything the old one didn't.
There is a difference, the new one is not required at all if you are just going to play the game casually. But you all seem to ignore this and still screams since it is a small nuisance adapting to it for you.
|
On December 13 2008 00:57 Manit0u wrote:
The only difference is that by not shifting focus you allow players for more flexibility, is it a bad thing?
No, no, no. This shifting focus thingie also brings into the game such entertaining feature as Random Sudden Death. Think of ZvP: you just killed enemy army and decide to go back to your base for 2 seconds to do non sensual, but very important stuff like ordering drones to mine and to click at buildings, then you see red dot at the minimap and immediately come back to your hydras only to find that they are ALL DIED to couple psi-storms. This amazing feature helps to keep such monsters as Jaedong on the ground, so not so great Protoss players would get lucky once in a while and take game from him. Without it he’ll be just unstoppable and that’s not acceptable.
On December 13 2008 02:17 Phyre wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2008 00:57 Manit0u wrote:
The only difference is that by not shifting focus you allow players for more flexibility, is it a bad thing? You're right when you say it would allow the players more "flexibility" in a sense. It would allow them to never take their mind off of micro since macro doesn't require them to divert attention away from micro. But that makes things easier. It takes away from the speed and multitasking ability required by the pros. Imagine if you could select a shuttle with HTs and it had a "Go find an expansion and storm drop it" button. It would allow the player to focus more on his/her main army instead of harassing hence more "flexibility" but is a fairly obvious decrease in skill requirement.
One shall never split player's attention by forcing him to do absolutely mindless and unnecessary stuff. That's as fun as having your grandma staying behind you constantly tapping your shoulder asking where are here glasses.
|
On December 08 2008 03:43 InRaged wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2008 03:08 NatsuTerran wrote:
And no, you can very easily tell how legitimately difficult a game is by playing by yourself. Starcraft macro is still fairly difficult even without an opponent. Like I said, most of the starcraft macro is based on punishment. That is, most of the macro in Starcraft is a mandatory that even noobs have to do in order to play the game. That's why you can see it even when you don't have any opponent. But everything changes once we apply "easy to learn hard to master" concept. Once we change it from being advantageous instead of being punishing, you don't need it anymore to win against inferior players.
Yeah, this is an important and somewhat overlooked point.
Playing SC1 is like having an application run at constant 100% CPU usage, even if it's just an idle game situation. But it should be dynamic, you should only give 100% if you really have to.
But in SC1, when e.g. Bisu plays against a Korean amateur Zerg which he is supposed to rape like 45-5 in 50 games, he still has to play like he's playing against Jaedong, Luxury or similar top notch Zergs. This is because the game itself forces upon you a difficulty (through the inefficient UI) that's completely independent of your opponent's strength. And that is what many pro-MBSers want to be changed, because it just doesn't make a lot of sense. It's just a huge obstacle for beginners, and it's even an obstacle when a pro plays against a lesser player.
I assume it also leads to burnouts (or "ever-lasting slumps") quite fast. E.g. a lot of the old great players play ridiculously bad now, they make mistakes they would never have done earlier in their career. They have played too much, all this extremely fast typing/clicking/multitasking 10 hours a day (whether you play someone good or bad, you still need it, and that sucks) can't be good.
It also leads to huge upsets from bad players who steal a win they don't deserve just because the better player didn't play at 100%.
Apart from that it's simply unergonomic.
|
On December 09 2008 07:05 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2008 06:02 A3iL3r0n wrote:On December 08 2008 05:16 Unentschieden wrote:On December 08 2008 03:08 NatsuTerran wrote:
What does that zerg example have to do with anything? Are you required to spawn creep on every square inch of the map in SC2? And no, you can very easily tell how legitimately difficult a game is by playing by yourself. Starcraft macro is still fairly difficult even without an opponent. Yep - is that a good thing though? That is the core issue. What is "legitimate Difficulty" in a Multiplayer centric title? How much of the "difficulty" should depend on your enemys skills and how much on the game itself? I´d prefer as much "enemybased difficulty" as possible. Edit: Basically what InRaged said. Go play WC3 then since there's no macro. It's obvious you don't enjoy BW for what it is. SC2 should be a lot like BW in its core elements. If it's not, then how is it a proper sequel? Look, your argument doesn't even make sense. Both players have to contend with creating a flawless production line of macro. It's a skill. How you and your opponent match-up in this element of the game bears on the outcome. Unlike WC3, macro is a strategy in BW. How is removing almost an entire facet of the game a positive? The suggestion doesn't even have a sensible place in the discussion. Mechanics are a large part of BW. So leave my game alone, please. I'm not trying to insult you or be elitist, because again, it's all about preference, not right or wrong. If you want MBS and automine, there are other games that already have it. Go do that, and leave my game alone. I was just wandering that perhaps it has occured to someone that actually macro in SC2 will be much the same as in SCBW as of this stage of game development. Right now, Bisu needs to spend approximately 1 second to produce from 10 gateways, in SC2 it will take him almost the same amount of time (hotkey + 10x another key pressing). I know you won't have to go back to your base any more but while producing units from numerous production buildings which can take a couple of seconds your hands as to micro/whatever are tied. So basically in SC2 decision between micro/macro will have the same impact on the game since macroing will still be time consuming. The only difference is that you will be able to watch the battles while doing so which opens up some interesting decisionmaking - will I gain more by producing more units or by breaking my macro to micro the units? Just my 2 cents.
That's exactly what many percieve as a negative thing. Did you read any previous MBS/auto-mining/macro/whatever threads before?
You can't really try to solve an issue without hearing the other side's points. ;;
|
manitou i dont see how macro is harder now if everybody that played the game+progamers said that it was very easy.
and there is a hack in brood war that allows mbs turnin the game easier too.
So basically in SC2 decision between micro/macro will have the same impact on the game since macroing will still be time consuming. The only difference is that you will be able to watch the battles while doing so which opens up some interesting decisionmaking - will I gain more by producing more units or by breaking my macro to micro the units?
Pressing 4mmmm wont harm ur micro that much, cause the whole mbs point is using the UI to make things easier, if it will make u require more balls to do something then it is wrong.
Better, some progamers can both micro and macro perfectly at almost the same time, jaedong 2 muta group+macroing, or NaDa tornado.
I am assuming that ur arguments fit the casual and amateur players then.
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 13 2008 03:06 Klockan3 wrote:
There is a difference, the new one is not required at all if you are just going to play the game casually. But you all seem to ignore this and still screams since it is a small nuisance adapting to it for you.
You don't need to scrap the system entirely though to achieve that goal. Look at Kennigit's idea in the "Potential Solutions to Automine" thread. It makes manual mining not a necessity to play casually, but still gives it advantages at a competitive level.
On December 13 2008 03:25 InRaged wrote:
No, no, no. This shifting focus thingie also brings into the game such entertaining feature as Random Sudden Death. Think of ZvP: you just killed enemy army and decide to go back to your base for 2 seconds to do non sensual, but very important stuff like ordering drones to mine and to click at buildings, then you see red dot at the minimap and immediately come back to your hydras only to find that they are ALL DIED to couple psi-storms. This amazing feature helps to keep such monsters as Jaedong on the ground, so not so great Protoss players would get lucky once in a while and take game from him. Without it he’ll be just unstoppable and that’s not acceptable.
This is an extreme that doesn't happen. If you have Jaedong-level game sense, you know when to look away, and when to keep your eyes on the battle. Naturally, if you see templar in the field with enough energy for storms, its fairly obvious you shouldn't look away until you've sniped them.
On December 13 2008 03:25 InRaged wrote:
One shall never split player's attention by forcing him to do absolutely mindless and unnecessary stuff. That's as fun as having your grandma staying behind you constantly tapping your shoulder asking where are here glasses.
For the love of god, its a game, not a drug. Not every single moment has to be gut-wrenching, stimulating action. Running in football can be seen as an "absolutely mindless and unnecessary stuff," but it still adds to the game. Look at the game as a whole, not at the little bits and pieces.
Its not about the mouse-clicks. Its about the mental focus and time-management, both of which are important skills in any RTS. Removing macro mechanics without suitable compensation greatly de-emphasizes these two things. I'm sure most people that are anti-MBS and anti-automine would be completely open to an alternative that emphasizes a similar mental focus and management ability, even if it is less of an "APM sink," but people have yet to come up with one that doesn't seem extremely forced or artificial.
|
On December 01 2008 16:10 Ronald_McD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2008 15:55 Misrah wrote:
never pro mbs. The beauty of SC is playing with a strategic mind while simultaneously microing and macroing like a god.
There is no argument. Street fighter two has two characters on a 2d screen. Nothing compared to starcraft's multitasking.
Think about it, pros are so amazing because they can do macro and micro while simultaneously thinking and making strategical decisions. That is why they are pro, and I am a scrub. You have failed to convince me why. But I'm not here to argue over MBS. Street Fighter is a lot simpler, but it's a game nonetheless, and the principles of a game still apply.
exactly
|
On December 13 2008 11:53 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2008 03:25 InRaged wrote:
No, no, no. This shifting focus thingie also brings into the game such entertaining feature as Random Sudden Death. Think of ZvP: you just killed enemy army and decide to go back to your base for 2 seconds to do non sensual, but very important stuff like ordering drones to mine and to click at buildings, then you see red dot at the minimap and immediately come back to your hydras only to find that they are ALL DIED to couple psi-storms. This amazing feature helps to keep such monsters as Jaedong on the ground, so not so great Protoss players would get lucky once in a while and take game from him. Without it he’ll be just unstoppable and that’s not acceptable. This is an extreme that doesn't happen. If you have Jaedong-level game sense, you know when to look away, and when to keep your eyes on the battle. Naturally, if you see templar in the field with enough energy for storms, its fairly obvious you shouldn't look away until you've sniped them.
Naturally, there is a fog of war in the game, which makes it impossible to always know for sure whether there are templars left, or not, no matter how good is your game sense. I thought I made it clear in the previous post.
As for doesn't happen, do you really wanna me to post all the VODs where the Top Progamers haven't split their irradiated mutalisks or didn't dodge the storm because they were macroing at the time storm/irradiate were casted and had no idea about upcoming massacre? I don't even understand how it could be called a choice between macro and micro. That would be a choice, if player saw that coming, but decided to keep clicking 4mmmm before dodging attack, because he thinks reinforcement's timing is more important. Current mechanics allows this kind of choice and I don't know what makes you think you can micro your units properly while doing perfectly timed 4mmmzzzzb...
For the love of god, its a game, not a drug. Not every single moment has to be gut-wrenching, stimulating action. Running in football can be seen as an "absolutely mindless and unnecessary stuff," but it still adds to the game.
Maybe in some kind of Star Trek Universe where everybody has personal teleports, running may seem as unnecessary, but I for one don't know any other way for a human to get closer to the ball.
And yes, it's a game, and game is supposed to be fun. What you're advocating is to purposely put frustrating time-sinking actions into it solely for the sake of making the least entertaining part of the game - the macro-management - more important for the player. How much times it should be rephrased so you understand that this is insanity? Reversing back to the old mechanics is always a possibility. Why you people keep insisting that guys at Blizzard should do it asap? You don't wanna deeper and more entertaining macro-management or what?
Removing macro mechanics without suitable compensation greatly de-emphasizes these two things. I'm sure most people that are anti-MBS and anti-automine would be completely open to an alternative that emphasizes a similar mental focus and management ability, even if it is less of an "APM sink," but people have yet to come up with one that doesn't seem extremely forced or artificial.
I posted one such example at the two previous pages. But no, forget about it — ignoring it and keeping posting that there's nothing that replaces old macro is so much more fun, right.
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 13 2008 18:41 InRaged wrote: I don't even understand how it could be called a choice between macro and micro. That would be a choice, if player saw that coming, but decided to keep clicking 4mmmm before dodging attack, because he thinks reinforcement's timing is more important. Current mechanics allows this kind of choice and I don't know what makes you think you can micro your units properly while doing perfectly timed 4mmmzzzzb...
Strategy is made up of calculated risks. Macroing while there's the potential threat of being stormed or attacked is a calculated risk of giving up a little control for having more units in the future. If you didn't see the templars, then you took a calculated risk by macroing instead of managing your army. On the flip side, its not a meaningful choice if the right answer is immediately apparent. In the case that you see the enemy moving templars in to storm, if you were looking at the battle, the right choice is blatantly obvious (save 8 hydras from storm, or queue up 3 more and lose them? Hmm...).
I posted one such example at the two previous pages. But no, forget about it — ignoring it and keeping posting that there's nothing that replaces old macro is so much more fun, right.
Apologies, I should have prefaced my post with a tl;dr. I will read and edit.
EDIT:
On December 06 2008 01:08 InRaged wrote:
All what need to be done is to somehow turn actions that doesn't depend on game-plan or depend only indirectly into ones, which directly and in a obvious way impact players strategy and, in our case, macro.
For Zerg, good example would be Spawning Creep and Nydus Worming with Overlords/Overseers. If this abilities are made viable enough (in sense, players who constantly use them have bigger advantage over opponent than players who use them rarely) and if they are properly balanced (i.e. opponent can somehow cancel out this abilities once they were used, so player is forced to regularly reuse them), then it will add good amount of macro actions for Zerg and that's exactly what we need.
I assume you were referring to this post. Its a step in the right direction, but I have one issue with it. It doesn't generate enough mental focus-switching to be effective. You simply wouldn't need to put creep all over the place. There's no use for it. If they made it viable, say, by allowing you to put easy Nydus worms on it, then the balance issues would be absolutely absurd (map control EZ?).
EDIT 2:
Figured I should respond to this, since its related.
On December 08 2008 03:43 InRaged wrote:
Having the path from your base to your opponent's base covered with creep will bring your ground units to your opponent's base 30% faster. It's much bigger advantage than you get from perfect 4z5z6z7z8z.
You figure out.
Like hell thats gonna be cost-effective? To make a wide enough creep path thats useful for your army would take much longer than would make it worth the actions. Players aren't going to take actions that aren't worth the time and resources.
|
On December 13 2008 18:49 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2008 03:43 InRaged wrote:
Having the path from your base to your opponent's base covered with creep will bring your ground units to your opponent's base 30% faster. It's much bigger advantage than you get from perfect 4z5z6z7z8z.
You figure out. Like hell thats gonna be cost-effective? To make a wide enough creep path thats useful for your army would take much longer than would make it worth the actions. Players aren't going to take actions that aren't worth the time and resources.
It should be made viable of course... you shouldn't have to fiddle around too much to get around the map with that, so it should spread reasonably fast and it should be cost efficient to do so (and it should be possible for the enemy to kill/remove the creep of course, but that should take some time so it's not too easily defended against). If you still are at a disadvantage for even bothering to set up a creep route, it's a balance bug which must be fixed by a balance patch.
This feature could also lead to minor mind games like "I made a creep highway to there, so I could attack there, but I'll use the slow route instead to catch him off guard".
It would also make timings harder because you have to learn timings for normal Zerg armies as well as 30% faster Zerg armies.
All in all this is a good thing that would deepen the gameplay while being lore-friendly too (Zergs infest everything).
|
LMAO are you guys joking? There's no way in hell anyone over a retard is gonna send all their overlords into the map to make creep when there is a ball of marines roaming around for map control. How often do you see overlords out and about now in bw? They are a huge liability in TvZ.
Also, I'm not sure how other anti mbs poters feel about this, but I REALLY like games that outright exculde beginners from the actual game until they have polished mechanics. Basically every sport does this with things such as basketball dribbling or learning to hold a bat and hit a baseball or the proper way to hit the ball in tennis and hold the racket. These things are a requirement for an increased learning curve which creates a greater skill gap. Otherwise your just playing another kid's video game.
|
On December 13 2008 22:25 NatsuTerran wrote:
LMAO are you guys joking? There's no way in hell anyone over a retard is gonna send all their overlords into the map to make creep when there is a ball of marines roaming around for map control. How often do you see overlords out and about now in bw? They are a huge liability in TvZ.
The idea is to give Zerg players a incentive to actually try and "infest the map" which would be in contrast to an enemys attempt to prevent this. IF a Zerg player has to decide to either protect his creepsources or learn to deal with the enemy without the 30% speed boost - that would be perfectly fine with me.
On December 13 2008 22:25 NatsuTerran wrote:
Also, I'm not sure how other anti mbs poters feel about this, but I REALLY like games that outright exculde beginners from the actual game until they have polished mechanics.
Seriously? I mean really, do you actually WANT to exclude players? I could understand it if you said something like "keep them from logging into battle net until they played the Multiplayer-Tutoriual" and even that is highly questional.
On December 13 2008 22:25 NatsuTerran wrote:
Basically every sport does this with things such as basketball dribbling or learning to hold a bat and hit a baseball or the proper way to hit the ball in tennis and hold the racket.
Having to learn the rules and entrance barriers are not the same. What you are thinking of would be more like including a minimum height into the official Basketball rules.
Even if you have no clue how to haold a racket you can still play Tennis, obviously not as good as someone who knows the propper grip but it doesn´t prevent you from playing. Nothing in the Tennis rules would disqualify you if you have the "bad grip".
On December 13 2008 22:25 NatsuTerran wrote:
These things are a requirement for an increased learning curve which creates a greater skill gap. Otherwise your just playing another kid's video game.
Wikipedia says:
"The term learning curve refers to the graphical relation between the amount of learning and the time it takes to learn." [...]
"The expression, "steep learning curve" is used in two opposite contexts. Originally it referred to quick progress in learning during the initial stages followed by gradually lesser improvements with further practice. The progress may be measured in different ways, e.g. memory accuracy vs. the number of trials. Over time, the misapprehension has emerged that a "steep" learning curve means that something requires a great deal of effort to learn because of the natural association of the word "steep" with a slope which is difficult to climb. This has led to confusion and disagreements even among "learned" people.
Another specific context of the term "learning curve" involves the effort required to acquire a new skill (e.g., expertise with a new tool) over a specific period of time. In this context, expressions such as "fast learning curve", "short learning curve", and "steep learning curve" are used. This context involves a different interpretation of fast initial progress vs. time—namely, the amount of progress required at each stage of learning. In this sense, "steep learning curve" represents the need to make significant progress in the initial stages so that a person may start using the new skill with reasonable efficiency, a need often associated with increased efforts in learning. Conversely, the expressions "gradual" or "flat learning curve" imply that the acquisition of a skill may be gradual, so that a reasonable use of the new skill is possible at early stages with a relatively light amount of training."
I´ll try to illustrate: (the -------- is necessary since the forum otherwise removes spaces)
"Skill" (NOT RANKING)
A| ---------------------------------*
B| ---------------------------*
C| -------------------*
D| ------------*
E| -----*
F|*______________________"Time/Effort"
This is (supposted to be) a straight line from beginner (F) to (A) which means that to get from F to E takes the same effort that going from B to A, a highly theoretical curve for which I can´t think of a realistic example right now.
"Skill" (NOT RANKING, not shown: Values "above" A )
A| ----------------------------------------*
B| ----------------------- *
C| ----------*
D| ----*
E| -*
F|*______________________"Time/Effort"
This would be a "easy to learn, hard to master" curve which is actually "steep" just as mentioned in the wikipedia article even though it describes a "flat learning curve" as used in discussions.
Here it is easier/faster to go from F to E than it is to go from B to A.
"Skill" (NOT RANKINGnot shown: Values "above" A )
A| -----------------------------------*
B| ----------------------------------*
C| ------------------------------*
D| ------------------------*
E| ----------------*
F|*______________________"Time/Effort"
That is a "steep learning curve", it is harder to go from F to E than it is to go from B to A, meaning it is relativly hard to learn but "smooth sailing" once you "got it".
And just to illustrate, the Skill-ceiling scenario:
"Skill" (NOT RANKING)
A| ---------*******************
B| -------*
C| -----*
D| ---*
E| -*
F|*______________________"Time/Effort"
Here it is impossible to improve beyond A-Skill.
I´d like you to illustrate your point by copying and modifying my illustration, since I´m not shure I understand what you mean with "increased learning curve".
|
What I'm saying is that my model game falls under your third diagram, where it takes a ton of practice to get into the actual game, but is then steady improvemement once you get there. The kind of games I hate are those that follow the second diagram, which accelerates F players into the E and D ranks rather quickly. I think Starcraft most accurately falls under the thrid diagram, or possibly the last one.
|
On December 14 2008 02:31 NatsuTerran wrote:
What I'm saying is that my model game falls under your third diagram, where it takes a ton of practice to get into the actual game, but is then steady improvemement once you get there. The kind of games I hate are those that follow the second diagram, which accelerates F players into the E and D ranks rather quickly. I think Starcraft most accurately falls under the thrid diagram, or possibly the last one.
I didn´t spell it out before but maybe I have to.
Skill
3| --------------------------*
2| -*
1|*______________________"Time/Effort"
Distances on the axises are equal, the 3 skill player would be than much better as 2 as 2 is better than 1.
That isn´t skill gap though.
In the above diagramm there is a tiny gap between 1 and 2 as it takes the 1 Player little Time/Effort to become as good as 2.
On the other hand the gap between 2 and 3 is significantly larger. It takes a 2Skill Player significantly more Time to be as good as 3 than it took to become a 2Skiller.
Lets try a example: Instead of skill we mesure APM, and that would be the ONLY factor in gaming, meaning that a 50 APM Player is half as "good" than a 100 APM.
APM
300|
200|
100|______________________"Time/Effort"
We assume everyone would start out at 100.
How long does it take to improve up to 200? Does it take more or less time/effort than improving from 200 to 300?
Where is the skill gap bigger, between 100 and 200 or between 200 and 300?
I won´t comment on your ideal learning curve right now because I´m not shure you saw the above and I´m also interested in the other readers opinion, especially on your answer.
|
A| ----------------------------------------*
B| ----------------------- *
C| ----------*
D| ----*
E| -*
F|*______________________"Time/Effort"
This one is the best.
And to answer one of the questions above:
Skill gap is bigger between 100 and 200 than 200 and 300 (at least if you're talking about RTS games here).
|
@OP
i agree.. but this begs the question...
wouldn't that just make starcraft a graphic intensive chess?
mind games are good but mechanical skill is also a key source in being a pro at soemthing...
it's like taking taekwondo and saying that hitting the hardest means u are pro.. no it's not, it's how u manure and control ur timing such that ur first atck leads into the next one and next and thus forth...
but other way is the same.. even if u could plan out how to move and exactly what to do if u do not have the strength to carry out those things u r useless... and as such I don't mind MBS and automine but any more "ez stuff" and the game's gonna go down the wrong hole...
|
On December 13 2008 20:56 0xDEADBEEF wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2008 18:49 TheYango wrote:On December 08 2008 03:43 InRaged wrote:
Having the path from your base to your opponent's base covered with creep will bring your ground units to your opponent's base 30% faster. It's much bigger advantage than you get from perfect 4z5z6z7z8z.
You figure out. Like hell thats gonna be cost-effective? To make a wide enough creep path thats useful for your army would take much longer than would make it worth the actions. Players aren't going to take actions that aren't worth the time and resources. It should be made viable of course... you shouldn't have to fiddle around too much to get around the map with that, so it should spread reasonably fast and it should be cost efficient to do so (and it should be possible for the enemy to kill/remove the creep of course, but that should take some time so it's not too easily defended against). If you still are at a disadvantage for even bothering to set up a creep route, it's a balance bug which must be fixed by a balance patch. This feature could also lead to minor mind games like "I made a creep highway to there, so I could attack there, but I'll use the slow route instead to catch him off guard". It would also make timings harder because you have to learn timings for normal Zerg armies as well as 30% faster Zerg armies. All in all this is a good thing that would deepen the gameplay while being lore-friendly too (Zergs infest everything).
How about this:
If two Overseers (Overlords?) are within each other's creep spawning radius the creep spreads faster (it "wants" to connect its various parts).
I.e.:
8 - creep spawning radii overlap each other - creep spreads faster
o
o - creep spawning radii do not overlap each other - creep spreads normally
What do you think?
Creep spawning would be an amazing asset if they implemented different types of terrain (slowing, damage over time, etc.) - the creep could negate those various effects, making it very useful! ^____^
|
On December 14 2008 03:55 Manit0u wrote:
A| ----------------------------------------*
B| ----------------------- *
C| ----------*
D| ----*
E| -*
F|*______________________"Time/Effort"
This one is the best.
I agree but I was actually fishing for a reason. WHY do you think this one is the best? I have my reasons but I´m actually interested in other peoples opinion about this.
On December 14 2008 03:55 Manit0u wrote:
And to answer one of the questions above:
Skill gap is bigger between 100 and 200 than 200 and 300 (at least if you're talking about RTS games here).
Well not exactly. It´s not important that it is RTS since in this case every other "skill" was ignored.
On December 14 2008 03:13 Unentschieden wrote:
Lets try a example: Instead of skill we mesure APM, and that would be the ONLY factor in gaming, meaning that a 50 APM Player is half as "good" than a 100 APM.
Skill gap DOESN´T describe success differences - If we were lucking for that we would compare on the Vertical scale meaning that a 300 APM player is more likely to win against a 100 APM player than a 200 APM player. That is not true for RTS but for the model I´m using here. It is my fault though, I shouldn´t have used the term APM and kept using the neutral "skill" scale.
Skill
3| --------------------------*
2| -*
1|*______________________"Time/Effort"
When fighting each other equal skill would have an equal chance to win, ergo 1vs1 means 50:50.
But 2vs1 would be 60:40 chance and 3vs1 would be 70:30 and so on, but 3vs2 would again be 60:40.
Maybe it´s easier like this:
Skill it takes to have a Win/Loss Ratio of X against a Opponent with unchanging skill
70:30| --------------------------*
60:40| -*
50:50|*______________________"Time/Effort"
|
On December 14 2008 04:32 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2008 20:56 0xDEADBEEF wrote:On December 13 2008 18:49 TheYango wrote:On December 08 2008 03:43 InRaged wrote:
Having the path from your base to your opponent's base covered with creep will bring your ground units to your opponent's base 30% faster. It's much bigger advantage than you get from perfect 4z5z6z7z8z.
You figure out. Like hell thats gonna be cost-effective? To make a wide enough creep path thats useful for your army would take much longer than would make it worth the actions. Players aren't going to take actions that aren't worth the time and resources. It should be made viable of course... you shouldn't have to fiddle around too much to get around the map with that, so it should spread reasonably fast and it should be cost efficient to do so (and it should be possible for the enemy to kill/remove the creep of course, but that should take some time so it's not too easily defended against). If you still are at a disadvantage for even bothering to set up a creep route, it's a balance bug which must be fixed by a balance patch. This feature could also lead to minor mind games like "I made a creep highway to there, so I could attack there, but I'll use the slow route instead to catch him off guard". It would also make timings harder because you have to learn timings for normal Zerg armies as well as 30% faster Zerg armies. All in all this is a good thing that would deepen the gameplay while being lore-friendly too (Zergs infest everything). How about this: If two Overseers (Overlords?) are within each other's creep spawning radius the creep spreads faster (it "wants" to connect its various parts). I.e.: 8 - creep spawning radii overlap each other - creep spreads faster o o - creep spawning radii do not overlap each other - creep spreads normally What do you think? Creep spawning would be an amazing asset if they implemented different types of terrain (slowing, damage over time, etc.) - the creep could negate those various effects, making it very useful! ^____^
Sounds like a possibility. I like the idea of the creep negating negative (and positive, if there are any?) terrain effects.
I've also thought about overlords being able to use this ability offensively (shooting creep at units to ensnare them). To make that spell more popular... (in order not to make it imbalanced the overlord would have to be exactly over the units which are to be ensnared).
But I think it's kind of useless to think about implementation details, rough brainstorming is sufficient, because Blizzard has full control and power over what they add to the game due to the game's closed nature, and they have to do whatever gets them the most customers because as a commercial company they're dependent on money, they can't just design the game like we or they want to. It needs to have mass appeal, or it will fail.
If Blizzard employees read this forum, they'll just skim over everything and look for decent ideas, but they'll probably never implement an idea exactly as written. Another reason for this is that game balancing is so hard to do (well not exactly hard, but very time consuming => game delaying!) and if you change one thing many other things you would have thought to be independent have suddenly changed too.
So it's best to leave Blizzard room for how exactly they want to implement it - because they need this room to make it "work" with the current state of the game.
|
How would the game fail? People who buy SC2 randomly won't know shit about MBS or any of these discussions.
The majority of people (casual players) around me probably haven't even played any other RTSes since SC. I think the expectation of the mass market is low. On the other hand, people that do play a lot of games (but suck at them) and competitive players have been the most vocal about the direction of SC2.
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 14 2008 05:43 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
But I think it's kind of useless to think about implementation details, rough brainstorming is sufficient, because Blizzard has full control and power over what they add to the game due to the game's closed nature, and they have to do whatever gets them the most customers because as a commercial company they're dependent on money, they can't just design the game like we or they want to. It needs to have mass appeal, or it will fail.
If Blizzard employees read this forum, they'll just skim over everything and look for decent ideas, but they'll probably never implement an idea exactly as written. Another reason for this is that game balancing is so hard to do (well not exactly hard, but very time consuming => game delaying!) and if you change one thing many other things you would have thought to be independent have suddenly changed too.
So it's best to leave Blizzard room for how exactly they want to implement it - because they need this room to make it "work" with the current state of the game.
I still think it feels forced in a way (if you make creep destroyable, or if you make it ensnare enemies, it doesn't feel like creep anymore). As I said, its a step in the right direction. Brainstorming is more productive than flaming one another.
I'll edit if I can think of some way to make this feel more natural.
EDIT: What if you had a relatively small creep radius, but had the creep grow if units die near it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
