|
On February 19 2009 22:10 Error Ash wrote:
Yes it does, having to justify why that feature should be turned on somewhere and off somewhere else is totally inconsistant and ridiculous.
It's justified in exactly same way as idra just justified lack of auto-casting on dark pylon. No difference.
How can you know it is more game deciding than sending your probes to work, have you tested the new features? In my oppinion its exactly the same, not sending new probes to work = less income, not using the macro mechanic = less income, only that newbie players don't have to use the new macro mechanic, whereas newb players still have to send their probes to mine...
Have YOU tested anything at all before claiming that something requires skill and creates different playstyles?
If you are "paying DDR in your base for 20 minutes" before any battle happens then thats your playstyle. There can be players who heavily focus on micro, not "playing DDR" at all, and there can be players who play macro heavy. If balanced right, there is room for a lot of different playstyles.
The only way to have different playstyle is to cheese or go some one-base or low-eco build. But for playing like that one will be called gay, for refusing to play straight game.
|
Unfortunately the Mule is still in the prototype phase and has a limited battery supply (timed life).
All units magically have unlimited ammunition and fuel and now some stupid mining cart that gets dropped from outer space runs out of battery after a short amount of time? That's your explanation for them having timed life? Are you kidding me?
I'm all for macro mechanics that intensify and diversify the game but if they're like this I'd rather pass.
|
On February 19 2009 21:40 InRaged wrote:
At first I thought I confused word gimmick with something else. Lurked wiki - nope, I'm clean. So what your OUTER SPACE and ALIENS have anything to do with this feature being gimmick is beyond me.
i wasnt debating you calling it a gimmick, it most definitely is. im just pointing out theres absolute nothing wrong with using gimmicky features if they make the game better.
It doesn't make for a better game any more than disabling auto-mining in ladder and enabling it anywhere else. It's even fucking worser - manual-mining was mundane but it wasn't game-deciding. But thanks to all the whining they basically brought it back as a game-deciding feature. Thank you.
manual mining is far more significant than this is. if you choose not to use manual mining.... you dont get any money. if you choose not to use mules, you just mine slower. if manual mining wasnt 'game-deciding' this certainly isnt. however i do agree that it would be better to just disable easy mode in competitive play. that seems to have become an unattainable goal, and this is the next best thing available
And I don't see it as a compromise for anything. It's plain catering to the macro-whiners that suddenly appeared out of nowhere with sc2 announce. When I choose to play competitive multiplayer RTS I wanna go head to head with my opponent and not sit 20 minutes DDRing in my base later comparing whose penis longer in one single battle. If I wanted that I would compete in split-screen Guitar Hero, at least there I would listen to the interesting music.
part of going head to head with your opponent in a real time strategy game is seeing who has better multitasking. if he is better at managing his time so that he can return to his base and oversee his economy and production more efficiently than you can he deserves an edge. if you dont like that you should not be playing a real time strategy game.
|
On February 19 2009 22:39 InRaged wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 22:10 Error Ash wrote:
Yes it does, having to justify why that feature should be turned on somewhere and off somewhere else is totally inconsistant and ridiculous. It's justified in exactly same way as idra just justified lack of auto-casting on dark pylon. No difference. Show nested quote +How can you know it is more game deciding than sending your probes to work, have you tested the new features? In my oppinion its exactly the same, not sending new probes to work = less income, not using the macro mechanic = less income, only that newbie players don't have to use the new macro mechanic, whereas newb players still have to send their probes to mine... Have YOU tested anything at all before claiming that something requires skill and creates different playstyles?
dont have to test something thats common sense. it requires skill in that it requires multitasking, which is a skill. from that it follows that it will create different playstyles, given that there is more to do in the game than can feasibly be done. players will be forced to prioritize. if the game is designed well players will be able to prioritize different parts of the game and still be competitive, leading to different play styles. this is what happened in bw, though it has mostly faded out in the macro era. therefore it can happen in sc2 if designed correctly, time-consuming macro tasks are one of the requirements for that correct design.
Show nested quote +If you are "paying DDR in your base for 20 minutes" before any battle happens then thats your playstyle. There can be players who heavily focus on micro, not "playing DDR" at all, and there can be players who play macro heavy. If balanced right, there is room for a lot of different playstyles. The only way to have different playstyle is to cheese or go some one-base or low-eco build. But for playing like that one will be called gay, for refusing to play straight game.
ya
boxer
what a fag.
?
you were just telling him he shouldnt be making assumptions without testing, and you're trying to tell us what playstyles will be viable in a game thats pre-beta?
|
In these days we live in, every aspect adding to the skill ceiling will be artificial. There might have been times, when insufficient UIs were technically imposed, but those are gone. So now the question is, what mechanics should be introduced to higher the skill ceiling, while making that mechanics feel as little forced as possible. Not having Automining and not having MBS obviously feels very forced, because other games have it, too, and there are virtually no other thing you'd ever want to do with your workers than letting them mine, similar argument goes for MBS.
Therefore, mechanics should be introduced, that could also easily be taken over by the AI, but have good reasons to be not. Someone mentioned Psistorm. That is a good ability, and Blizzard didn't fully succeed, but went in that direction with the new macro changes. At least you have to make a decision beetween different spells of the dark pylon, the CC, etc. Sending a worker to mine never was a decision. Higher your mining speed OR cloak one of your units is a decision, therefore a good reason to not automize it.
Of course, it still feels more forced than the Psistorm. But you should rather think about how it could become even less forced, rather than saying "oh well, it is always forced, so just take MBS and Automining out."
|
While we're at it, let's remove auto-attack and multiple unit selection as well. It's not real micro unless we have to fire every shot by ourselves, now is it?
But seriously, maybe the game would've been fine without these extra mechanics. How can anyone say for sure that the skill ceiling is not high enough without having actually tried to reach for it?
IdrA, you said that one of the reasons Broodwar is so good because there are more things than you can possibly do which makes for a lot of different playstyles and also makes it impossible to ever perfect it.
Are you really positive that SC2 will be "dumbed down" enough so that players will be able to get close to perfection and thereby making the game less interesting without those additional mechanics?
I'm not asking you to get in conflict with your statements but because I'm simply nowhere near to be good enough to really tell from my own perspective.
From my point of view there'd still be so many things to do at the same time that I'd never be able to keep up with it.
Making the game more micro-intensive also means that there's less time total to be spend on macro. So who knows if there can't be a new balance between those two that's just not the same as in Broodwar but equally as diverse.
|
On February 20 2009 00:34 ven_ wrote:
Making the game more micro-intensive also means that there's less time total to be spend on macro. So who knows if there can't be a new balance between those two that's just not the same as in Broodwar but equally as diverse.
I don't think any of us want Starcraft 2 to become Warcraft IV. By that I mean, Warcraft III is known for being an EXTREMELY micro intensive game that requires no macro.
The thing that people here like about Brood War is that many people here feel it has a good balance of macro and micro.
Without introducing macro mechanics, the game becomes like Warcraft III where all players do is exchange blows for 5 hours until someone loses ONE unit and then it's gg.
|
On February 20 2009 00:34 ven_ wrote:
While we're at it, let's remove auto-attack and multiple unit selection as well. It's not real micro unless we have to fire every shot by ourselves, now is it?
But seriously, maybe the game would've been fine without these extra mechanics. How can anyone say for sure that the skill ceiling is not high enough without having actually tried to reach for it?
IdrA, you said that one of the reasons Broodwar is so good because there are more things than you can possibly do which makes for a lot of different playstyles and also makes it impossible to ever perfect it.
Are you really positive that SC2 will be "dumbed down" enough so that players will be able to get close to perfection and thereby making the game less interesting without those additional mechanics? you missed the point. i was not saying that sc2 wouldnt have been mechanically demanding, i just mentioned that because it is a prequisite for varied styles. what was lacking before, and may still be lacking to some extent, is a time-demanding macro task. all the multi-tasking requirements in the world wont lead to varied styles if all of the multitasking is related to the same element of the game.
I'm not asking you to get in conflict with your statements but because I'm simply nowhere near to be good enough to really tell from my own perspective.
From my point of view there'd still be so many things to do at the same time that I'd never be able to keep up with it.
Making the game more micro-intensive also means that there's less time total to be spend on macro. So who knows if there can't be a new balance between those two that's just not the same as in Broodwar but equally as diverse.
obviously theres gonna be a new balance, it was never going to be as macro intensive as bw. but before the new macro mechanics there wasnt going to be any macro TO balance. literally, the only reason you had to look away from your army was to build buildings before. its a bit better now, nothin to do but wait for beta and see how it plays.
|
Seems to me like the dark pylon is a better, more versatile version of the shield battery. I like it alot.
|
On February 20 2009 00:41 Kyo Yuy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2009 00:34 ven_ wrote:
Making the game more micro-intensive also means that there's less time total to be spend on macro. So who knows if there can't be a new balance between those two that's just not the same as in Broodwar but equally as diverse. I don't think any of us want Starcraft 2 to become Warcraft IV. By that I mean, Warcraft III is known for being an EXTREMELY micro intensive game that requires no macro. The thing that people here like about Brood War is that many people here feel it has a good balance of macro and micro. Without introducing macro mechanics, the game becomes like Warcraft III where all players do is exchange blows for 5 hours until someone loses ONE unit and thaen it's gg.
That's just not true. The games are way too different in way too many areas that any sort of comparison between the two is useless.
Warcraft is very micro-intensive but for very different reasons that have no actual resemblence with Starcraft 2.
WC3 has almost no economy and if it had it wouldn't make that much of a difference due to the low supply limits. Having a bigger army can actually be a disadvantage due to upkeep.
You have less but more powerful units and additionally to that also the heroes that get experience from dying units which makes it just way more important not to lose them. Especially because every game is practically a very low-economy game and you usually can't afford to rebuild needlessly lost units.
Due the existence of creeps on the map, the importance of the hero and the very idiotic tech tree (which isn't really a tree, more like a single branch) everyone (even across all the four races) has to use practically the same build order.
And the biggest difference of all are heroes that are so powerful that they can take on whole armies on their own if they have a sufficiently high level.
Sure Warcraft also has MBS and automining but that also plays so much more different that you can't compare it either.
Automining in Warcraft 3 is practically useless because you only need like a total of 12 workers which are finished right before your hero pops out anyway and MBS isn't that much of an advantage because you usually only have a maximum of two production buildings of the same type even in very late game.
|
On February 20 2009 01:13 ven_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2009 00:41 Kyo Yuy wrote:On February 20 2009 00:34 ven_ wrote:
Making the game more micro-intensive also means that there's less time total to be spend on macro. So who knows if there can't be a new balance between those two that's just not the same as in Broodwar but equally as diverse. I don't think any of us want Starcraft 2 to become Warcraft IV. By that I mean, Warcraft III is known for being an EXTREMELY micro intensive game that requires no macro. The thing that people here like about Brood War is that many people here feel it has a good balance of macro and micro. Without introducing macro mechanics, the game becomes like Warcraft III where all players do is exchange blows for 5 hours until someone loses ONE unit and thaen it's gg. Warcraft is very micro-intensive but for very different reasons that have no actual resemblence with Starcraft 2. You've played the final version of Starcraft 2 before so you know what it resembles right?
Due the existence of creeps on the map, the importance of the hero and the very idiotic tech tree (which isn't really a tree, more like a single branch) everyone (even across all the four races) has to use practically the same build order. Try using the exact same build order in four matchups for any given race and every map regardless of balance, and see what happens.
And the biggest difference of all are heroes that are so powerful that they can take on whole armies on their own if they have a sufficiently high level. No.
Sure Warcraft also has MBS and automining but that also plays so much more different that you can't compare it either. That's like saying attack move plays differently in different RTS games. MBS and automine are mechanics. They work exactly the same way in every game: several buildings can be selected at once, and workers automatically start mining when you rally them to a resource node.
I can make a comparison to what people don't want Starcraft 2 TO BECOME because it's not out yet. You're saying I can't because Starcraft 2 plays differently from Warcraft III. And you know that...how? Have you seen some competitive Starcraft 2 tournaments yet to see how games play out on the professional level?
|
On February 19 2009 05:53 fanatacist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2009 23:24 adelarge wrote:
No surprise here, Terran again got the worst abilities.
Old scanner presented like some new mechanic and some lame calldown which only gives you more supply? What?? Are you fuc*ing kidding me Blizzard? That's the best you can think of?
They probably "invented" these mechanic during a lunch break. Show nested quote +On February 19 2009 05:32 -orb- wrote:On February 19 2009 05:25 Frits wrote:haha On February 18 2009 23:24 adelarge wrote:
No surprise here, Terran again got the worst abilities.
Old scanner presented like some new mechanic and some lame calldown which only gives you more supply? What?? Are you fuc*ing kidding me Blizzard? That's the best you can think of?
They probably "invented" these mechanic during a lunch break. What the fuck blizzard, how dare you overpower zerg and protoss!!! *has never played a game of sc2* I like his last comment "They probably invented these mechanic during a lunch break" I find it ironic because Pixar got the ideas for the last 10 years worth of their animations all in one sitting drinking coffee and talking, and yet this guy seems to think you have to go into some special creativity room and wear your imagination hat and stir brainwaves with a spoon to get ideas out. rofl
Where does these quotes come from? Can't find them in this thread...
|
On February 20 2009 01:51 Kyo Yuy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2009 01:13 ven_ wrote:On February 20 2009 00:41 Kyo Yuy wrote:On February 20 2009 00:34 ven_ wrote:
Making the game more micro-intensive also means that there's less time total to be spend on macro. So who knows if there can't be a new balance between those two that's just not the same as in Broodwar but equally as diverse. I don't think any of us want Starcraft 2 to become Warcraft IV. By that I mean, Warcraft III is known for being an EXTREMELY micro intensive game that requires no macro. The thing that people here like about Brood War is that many people here feel it has a good balance of macro and micro. Without introducing macro mechanics, the game becomes like Warcraft III where all players do is exchange blows for 5 hours until someone loses ONE unit and thaen it's gg. Warcraft is very micro-intensive but for very different reasons that have no actual resemblence with Starcraft 2. You've played the final version of Starcraft 2 before so you know what it resembles right?
I can say they play differently because the games are just nothing alike. Nothing at all.
Show nested quote +Due the existence of creeps on the map, the importance of the hero and the very idiotic tech tree (which isn't really a tree, more like a single branch) everyone (even across all the four races) has to use practically the same build order. Try using the exact same build order in four matchups for any given race and every map regardless of balance, and see what happens.
That's exactly what I'm doing and it's working out just fine. Try doing it differently like adding an expansion before getting a rax or teching before getting an altar. Guess what, it's impossible.
Show nested quote +And the biggest difference of all are heroes that are so powerful that they can take on whole armies on their own if they have a sufficiently high level. No.
Seriously, did you ever even play the game?
Show nested quote +Sure Warcraft also has MBS and automining but that also plays so much more different that you can't compare it either. That's like saying attack move plays differently in different RTS games. MBS and automine are mechanics. They work exactly the same way in every game: several buildings can be selected at once, and workers automatically start mining when you rally them to a resource node.
I never said that. I said they will play out differently because in Warcraft 3 it makes almost no difference at all if you had MBS and automining or not but it will make a big impact in Starcraft 2.
I can make a comparison to what people don't want Starcraft 2 TO BECOME because it's not out yet. You're saying I can't because Starcraft 2 plays differently from Warcraft III. And you know that...how? Have you seen some competitive Starcraft 2 tournaments yet to see how games play out on the professional level?
There's no similarity so there's no way they will be even remotely the same. That's how I know.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On February 19 2009 18:11 -orb- wrote:
Holy crap those images are like a million times better than the old ones.
Looks like they're going in the right direction taking it away from being cartoony.
Edit: #6 WHAT THE FUCK?
Hey let's take micro out of the game too by just making it so the AI of the game will only attack what you want it to attack! No more messy target firing!
Have you tried using infested terrans? God DAMN are they ever useless! The only way to get off a hit without them exploding into the wrong thing is to drop them ;/
I don't think it's a big deal ~
|
On February 19 2009 23:35 IdrA wrote:
i wasnt debating you calling it a gimmick, it most definitely is. im just pointing out theres absolute nothing wrong with using gimmicky features if they make the game better.
Nothing wrong with using gimmick when same effect could be achieved without using gimmick. Yeah, right. Makes sense as usual.
manual mining is far more significant than this is. if you choose not to use manual mining.... you dont get any money. if you choose not to use mules, you just mine slower. if manual mining wasnt 'game-deciding' this certainly isnt.
You can't choose not to use manual mining, hence "mundane". But whether you send workers to mine perfectly or sloppily has almost zero impact on the game (outside of early/low-eco game) because of the way resource gathering AI works. Besides, there is limit on how many workers you can have per base and when you're approaching this limit or climbed above it adding workers won't give additional income at all.
That's not true for new mechanics, especially not second statement. Therefore, these gimmicks are inevitably more game-deciding and player-demanding than manual-mining. Adding them when you don't even know whether there's need for one is absolutely dumb.
part of going head to head with your opponent in a real time strategy game is seeing who has better multitasking. if he is better at managing his time so that he can return to his base and oversee his economy and production more efficiently than you can he deserves an edge. if you dont like that you should not be playing a real time strategy game.
Manual-mining has nothing to do with multitasking. You can tell this tales to the blizzard, the noobs they are will believe this, since it's pretty difficult for novices to get in rhythm with this hassle. For any amateur who spend couple months, let alone about a year, to play, it requires zero effort to keep this task in mind and execute these stupid several clicks every time he hotkeys/produces reinforcement or builds additional supplies/defenses/gateways.
And it doesn't have any impact on players styles, since something without strict timing can be delayed with no harm for the player.
And you're not the one who can tell me what I should play and what not. If anything, You shouldn't comment on game-developing process if you're eager to put frustrating shit into the game just to raise skill ceiling.
|
On February 19 2009 23:39 IdrA wrote:
dont have to test something thats common sense. it requires skill in that it requires multitasking, which is a skill. from that it follows that it will create different playstyles, given that there is more to do in the game than can feasibly be done. players will be forced to prioritize. if the game is designed well players will be able to prioritize different parts of the game and still be competitive, leading to different play styles. this is what happened in bw, though it has mostly faded out in the macro era. therefore it can happen in sc2 if designed correctly, time-consuming macro tasks are one of the requirements for that correct design.
BW faded in the macro era because players get skilled enough. SC2 will start from this point. Not from 2004 year. And I demand proof for your claims, because I don't see logic in your "common sense" of how adding macro into sequel of the game that already had slipped in the macro era will help differentiate playstyles.
ya
boxer
what a fag.
?
So, wait a second, micro-oriented playstyle is after all nothing else but cheesy/one-base/low-eco play? And that will dissapear from sc2 with auto-mining and mbs? If no, the point of this comment is?..
you were just telling him he shouldnt be making assumptions without testing, and you're trying to tell us what playstyles will be viable in a game thats pre-beta?
The fuck is this. In sentence you quoted above I was referring to the "then thats your playstyle" which is clearly about BW. And while we're here, it's you who keep insisting that game won't support different playstyles unless there's some crappy gimmick or total step-back to the old UI. It's you who throws unsupported claims only to admit later that people indeed whine a lot about prevalence of macro and then you say there should be more macro-features anyway.
I'm for year saying that people should wait for beta before jumping to the assumptions and before reverting back to the bw-way by either dropping automining or by replacing it with some ugly gimmicks.
|
On February 19 2009 21:40 InRaged wrote:
It doesn't make for a better game any more than disabling auto-mining in ladder and enabling it anywhere else. It's even fucking worser - manual-mining was mundane but it wasn't game-deciding. But thanks to all the whining they basically brought it back as a game-deciding feature. Thank you.
Why are you even looking forward to SC2 if you so apparently hate the original. You want to just play against your opponent and outsmart him? Go play turnbased games. I, on the other hand, don't even need an opponent to have fun in my ideal game. It's all about training yourself to exhaustion while listening to a sterotypical Asian montage training theme like so
+ Show Spoiler + 
|
Go to sleep and look what Blizzard throw out the door O_O.
I really like these mechanics. They're something new players can use every now and again and feel like they have been rewarded and higher level players will spam their use to maximise the advantage.
The Terran mechanic seems fine. You can scout with it, you can drop Mules at any of your bases from one Command Center (thingy). Seems useful to me.
The Dark Pylon is very interesting. Can't wait to try out stuff like this.
The Zerg Queen is awesome. She's really turning into the "Base Overseer" unit that it was originally supposed to be. This extra larvae idea has great potential.
damn..... I really want to play this game!
Blizzard! More replays! :D
|
On February 20 2009 01:51 Kyo Yuy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2009 01:13 ven_ wrote:On February 20 2009 00:41 Kyo Yuy wrote:On February 20 2009 00:34 ven_ wrote:
Making the game more micro-intensive also means that there's less time total to be spend on macro. So who knows if there can't be a new balance between those two that's just not the same as in Broodwar but equally as diverse. I don't think any of us want Starcraft 2 to become Warcraft IV. By that I mean, Warcraft III is known for being an EXTREMELY micro intensive game that requires no macro. The thing that people here like about Brood War is that many people here feel it has a good balance of macro and micro. Without introducing macro mechanics, the game becomes like Warcraft III where all players do is exchange blows for 5 hours until someone loses ONE unit and thaen it's gg. Warcraft is very micro-intensive but for very different reasons that have no actual resemblence with Starcraft 2. You've played the final version of Starcraft 2 before so you know what it resembles right?
You don't need to play the final version of Starcraft 2 to know that it won't have insanely powerful heroes, creeping, experience, and upkeep.
|
I don't like the direction this game is going in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
