|
On September 04 2009 04:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2009 04:46 mahnini wrote:On September 04 2009 04:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 04 2009 04:29 mahnini wrote:On September 04 2009 03:02 ToT)OjKa( wrote: I always thought these gimmicks would be stupid. Its like they took what SC is known for (micro/macro) and just shat on it and go "Hey look, you can macro these stuff too! nevermind that it's fucking stupid and rewards the users with one click every xx seconds for the ones that remember the bonus minerals because THAT IS SKILL. THEY'LL LOVE IT"
This isn't SC. I mine shit to make shit to kill shit. Nothing was wrong with that... this. i'm sure sc2 will be a fun game and i will play it no doubt. but principally wasnt one of the greatest corner stones of sc was that it was easy and intuitive? yes, the learning curve was high but you knew precisely what you needed to do. you mined stuff and made stuff. the inclusion of weird stuff like dark pylon (i guess obelisk now?), mule, queen, etc seems like a workaround to a flawed unit production system. at this rate i'm thinking sc2 will require more mechanically from players than sc. not only do you still have to mash keys to build units despite the inclusion of mbs, you now have an extra mechanism to baby sit. they dont even add any strategic depth as far as i can tell (having not have played the latest build), they just seem like things that you have to do in order to not fall behind. obviously people had similar feelings towards building units in sc, but you cant really compare it to that can you? See, what we keep forgetting here is that, overall, SC is NOT incredibly popular anymore. Yes, it has the best e-sport competitive scene in the world, but at the average joe level, it didn't stick. The fanbase is very spread out over the world, and you'll probably be hard-pressed to just go run into some random gamers that actually play Starcraft still, unless it's at a Starcraft LAN or something. The reason that it isn't still popular is because of the atrocious (for today's standards) AI. It really turns the average joe off that just to be able to competently control everything and do exactly what you know you should do, you have to practice a LOT and get your APM extremely high. Blizzard knows this, and that's why they've included all of the new UI tricks and are trying new things with these macro mechanics. That's also why I keep saying GIVE IT TIME. Give your feedback on the macro mechanics and give Blizzard time to change them. Don't just cry, "It sucks, bring back the old AI." yes, i agree. we should give everything a chance. but let's be honest, macroing in sc2 is nearly mechanically intensive as sc minus a few selection clicks (at least for terran and zerg). it's great this way, gives it a similar pace though it is significantly easier due to having all your production facilities on 3 keys. the only difference being you dont have to leave your units. you have to do this in addition to new "macro mechanics" that are tacked on. i'm going to open a big can of worms here but at least the "old ai" was an essential part of the game. building units is building units no matter how you do it. with their inclusion, these macro mechanics will also be essential but it wouldnt break the game if they were never included. Yes, but the thing Blizzard is trying to balance is would it break the competitive scene? You're 100% correct in saying the old AI was integral to SC - the fact that SC is so APM-intense is part of what makes it so great for a competitive e-sport (obviously along with the brilliant balance and strategical depth). What Blizzard is trying to do is balance all of this by asking themselves, "If we add automining, MBS, smartcasting, etc..., by how much will this reduce the APM requirement, and how can we get that back in there to keep it competitive?" Basically what Blizzard is doing is going through all the ideas they can to keep the game APM-intensive (which is one of the big reasons SC is so competitive, try looking at a game that isn't APM-intensive and keep a straight face while saying it's a good competitive game). So I think that's the question we have to ask ourselves - how much will all these new AI tricks reduce the APM by, and does it matter enough to include different macro gimmicks (which is all anything ever really would be, no matter how awesome it may feel). P.S. I'd be confident in saying that all 3 races are macro-intensive, the part where the APM difference between the races is lies in the micro aspect. Macroing off of 15 Gateways is just as APM-heavy as macroing off a dozen Factories. i think we are saying the same things in different ways. i agree the new macro mechanics are gimmicky.
i'm fine with mbs as surprising as that may sound. i actually find it significantly harder (thx for messing with my 5sd) because of spam you have to dish to make zerg units. the new terran addons are great at counteracting the whole 5m -> 5000 marines dealie. i didnt play protoss a lot but they seem largely unaffected by blizzards mbs "fix" (lol protoss so ez).
|
On September 04 2009 04:24 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2009 04:23 Picture wrote:On September 04 2009 04:06 Archerofaiur wrote:On September 04 2009 04:03 Picture wrote: They just need a few tweaks. The queen needs a nerf. From what I've heard you would pretty much put everything aside just to do it. It also makes 2 hatch/3hatch builds useless. This removes a lot of strategic elements.
The dark pylon and mule are too similar. Zerg focuses on production, and only one should focus on minerals. Seriously how hard is it to come up with a new idea? Give dark pylon the ability to warp in a building for a limited time, regardless of tech. Or whatever else to add more strategic elements to these mechanics. Players should be able to make more cost/benefit decisions, instead of these tedious tasks that must be done. Warp-In and Spawn Larva are both unit production. One is increased production, the other is temporary faster tech. I am not talking about the mini recall. Faster unit production is increased unit production. Warp_In is incredibly well put together and proof that Macro Mechanics can be some of the games best features. When did I say otherwise?
I am talking about the faster mining ability, not the mini recall like I said already.
|
On September 04 2009 04:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Like a poster before me said, the only reason SC1 didn't have automining is because it was impossible back then.
Why do people blindly keep saying this? automining wasnt at all impossible to implement or even difficult. Every time you played the AI in broodwar, guess what, the AI was using a version of automine. Again as pointed out, automine was used in other titles released at the same time as starcraft. Its not the revolutionary technological wonder you people make it out to be. It easily could have been implimented, and it wasnt.
|
On September 04 2009 04:57 Stripe wrote: This is probably all speculation, but I think implementing MBS and automine while removing the new gimmicky macro mechanics won't decrease the skill level of the game. Macro was part mechanics, but the most important part was decision making; when to expand, build more gateways, etc.
In order to make this game deeper, Blizzard should give players more decisions to make in terms of macro, not implement gimmicky mechanics like the dark pylon where you go to your base every seconds to cast it like a mindless drone.
While this is true at higher levels, I STRONGLY disagree at the lower levels (Dish range of iCCup, where the vast majority of SC players sit). Mechanical skill is the main thing that keeps the majority of iCCup players down - a person who has extremely strong mechanical skills but very mediocre strategical knowledge can still make it to C (or possibly more) fairly quickly. Mechanical difference is what separates a lot of players in the lower half of the competitive Starcraft scene, and this is probably the most important scene in SC. If you have a horrible UI that drives people away, you will never have a solid foundation to build a competitive community on.
|
On September 04 2009 05:02 fusionsdf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2009 04:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Like a poster before me said, the only reason SC1 didn't have automining is because it was impossible back then. Why do people blindly keep saying this? automining wasnt at all impossible to implement or even difficult. Every time you played the AI in broodwar, guess what, the AI was using a version of automine. Again as pointed out, automine was used in other titles released at the same time as starcraft. Its not the revolutionary technological wonder you people make it out to be. It easily could have been implimented, and it wasnt.
Forgive me, I said that incorrectly. True, it wasn't impossible, but it wasn't the standard by ANY means, and this is one of the reasons it wasn't included and needs to be included now. VERY few titles actually had it, and adding UI enhancements into the production of Starcraft by a company as small as Blizzard was at the time would've probably increased the time-table and decreased the fundings they had for it. Furthermore, adding automine into the UI so you could control it would still be vastly different than the computer AI using it. Who knows? Maybe it just wasn't possible or would've required a thorough rebuilding of the game to successfully get it to work. The point is, they didn't add it, and I seriously doubt they kept it out for "competitive purposes" (I HIGHLY doubt that Starcraft's competitive success was in any way on purpose).
My point is, A game without all of the standard UI enhancements of today would flop with the casual crowd, and anyone who denies this is seriously delusional. Unfortunately, the "casual" crowd is the most important one, since that's where most of the money comes from.
|
On September 04 2009 04:51 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2009 04:35 Stratos_speAr wrote: See, what we keep forgetting here is that, overall, SC is NOT incredibly popular anymore. Yes, it has the best e-sport competitive scene in the world, but at the average joe level, it didn't stick. The fanbase is very spread out over the world, and you'll probably be hard-pressed to just go run into some random gamers that actually play Starcraft still, unless it's at a Starcraft LAN or something. The reason that it isn't still popular is because of the atrocious (for today's standards) AI. It really turns the average joe off that just to be able to competently control everything and do exactly what you know you should do, you have to practice a LOT and get your APM extremely high. Blizzard knows this, and that's why they've included all of the new UI tricks and are trying new things with these macro mechanics. That's also why I keep saying GIVE IT TIME. Give your feedback on the macro mechanics and give Blizzard time to change them. Don't just cry, "It sucks, bring back the old AI." SC isn't popular anymore because it isn't new. In the period from 1998-2001, it was arguably as popular within the gaming population of the time as any big-name RTS is now. Novelty drives sales and popularity, but that doesn't mean that design decisions should be made solely for the purpose of novelty (which is what these mechanics seem to feel like).
it wasnt arguably as popular as other RTS, it was dramatically more popular. We're talking about a game that outsold fucking half life. We''re talking about a game that sold 7 million more copies than diablo2.
At one point pretty much every lan was either counterstrike or starcraft
On September 04 2009 05:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2009 05:02 fusionsdf wrote:On September 04 2009 04:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Like a poster before me said, the only reason SC1 didn't have automining is because it was impossible back then. Why do people blindly keep saying this? automining wasnt at all impossible to implement or even difficult. Every time you played the AI in broodwar, guess what, the AI was using a version of automine. Again as pointed out, automine was used in other titles released at the same time as starcraft. Its not the revolutionary technological wonder you people make it out to be. It easily could have been implimented, and it wasnt. Forgive me, I said that incorrectly. True, it wasn't impossible, but it wasn't the standard by ANY means, and this is one of the reasons it wasn't included and needs to be included now. VERY few titles actually had it, and adding UI enhancements into the production of Starcraft by a company as small as Blizzard was at the time would've probably increased the time-table and decreased the fundings they had for it. A game without all of the standard UI enhancements of today would flop with the casual crowd, and anyone who denies this is seriously delusional. Unfortunately, the "casual" crowd is the most important one, since that's where most of the money comes from.
I dont even know what to say to this. You are so wrong it hurts.
|
I dont even know what to say to this. You are so wrong it hurts.
Just saying I'm wrong doesn't magically make it true. You need to actually back it up with some reasons, or else you're just trolling.
|
i dont think, past initial adoption, the casual crowd is the money maker this time. the profit generated by the sales of sc2 will easily be eclipse if blizzard manages to nurture it as a competitive game.
yes, an ESPORT.
|
On September 04 2009 05:22 mahnini wrote: i dont think, past initial adoption, the casual crowd is the money maker this time. the profit generated by the sales of sc2 will easily be eclipse if blizzard manages to nurture it as a competitive game.
yes, an ESPORT.
And how does a competitive scene grow? It needs that foundation of average joe players, or else the competitive players don't have a community to play and get better with.
|
On September 04 2009 05:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2009 05:22 mahnini wrote: i dont think, past initial adoption, the casual crowd is the money maker this time. the profit generated by the sales of sc2 will easily be eclipse if blizzard manages to nurture it as a competitive game.
yes, an ESPORT. And how does a competitive scene grow? It needs that foundation of average joe players, or else the competitive players don't have a community to play and get better with. not necessarily, though that is a different discussion altogether.
|
While this is true at higher levels, I STRONGLY disagree at the lower levels (Dish range of iCCup, where the vast majority of SC players sit). Mechanical skill is the main thing that keeps the majority of iCCup players down - a person who has extremely strong mechanical skills but very mediocre strategical knowledge can still make it to C (or possibly more) fairly quickly. Mechanical difference is what separates a lot of players in the lower half of the competitive Starcraft scene, and this is probably the most important scene in SC. If you have a horrible UI that drives people away, you will never have a solid foundation to build a competitive community on.
So why should Starcraft 2 stay this way? Wouldn't the ladder be better if they promoted decision making ahead of mechanics right from the very bottom? Isn't it better if the person who understood the matchups more advance ahead of the guy who clicked faster?
Another thing about the ladder is currently in Iccup, the very bottom rank D represents a huge array of different skill levels. Most D players are within the top 10% best SC players, but absolute newbies also start at this rank. BNET 2.0's ladder system would be more stratified. It'll be like you added a E rank, a F rank, etc. below D in Iccup. That way new people can play new people and the current D players won't be at the bottom of the ladder, but probably somewhere in the middle. In the new system, working your way up from the very bottom will probably still require more mechanical skill then decision making skill just like going from D to C-.
|
I didn't read the thread or most of the OP, but think of it like this:
In starcraft one, all races had the exact same in-base macro mechanic: telling your workers to mine after they've been produced. I, for one, think that particular mechanic was unimaginative and stale. Thanks to automine, that mechanic has been removed. However, due mostly (I think) to backlash from this particular community, Blizzard decided they needed a similar macro mechanic in SC2. Starcraft being what it is, Blizzard felt all three races needed a different mechanic, but they should all require returning to base regularly and they should all increase macro, just like telling workers to mine did in SC1.
So, when you assert that these extra tasks are "unnecessary," I'll respond that I think telling workers to mine was unnecessary, and more boring than the new mechanics introduced.
|
On September 04 2009 05:32 Stripe wrote:Show nested quote +While this is true at higher levels, I STRONGLY disagree at the lower levels (Dish range of iCCup, where the vast majority of SC players sit). Mechanical skill is the main thing that keeps the majority of iCCup players down - a person who has extremely strong mechanical skills but very mediocre strategical knowledge can still make it to C (or possibly more) fairly quickly. Mechanical difference is what separates a lot of players in the lower half of the competitive Starcraft scene, and this is probably the most important scene in SC. If you have a horrible UI that drives people away, you will never have a solid foundation to build a competitive community on. So why should Starcraft 2 stay this way? Wouldn't the ladder be better if they promoted decision making ahead of mechanics right from the very bottom? Isn't it better if the person who understood the matchups more advance ahead of the guy who clicked faster? Another thing about the ladder is currently in Iccup, the very bottom rank D represents a huge array of different skill levels. Most D players are within the top 10% best SC players, but absolute newbies also start at this rank. BNET 2.0's ladder system would be more stratified. It'll be like you added a E rank, a F rank, etc. below D in Iccup. That way new people can play new people and the current D players won't be at the bottom of the ladder, but probably somewhere in the middle. In the new system, working your way up from the very bottom will probably still require more mechanical skill then decision making skill just like going from D to C-.
It doesn't make for a very observer-friendly game if you don't have a high APM requirement. Generally speaking, the more APM that is required to play a game, the faster the flow of the game, which in turn is more fun to watch. At the end of the day, the thing that keeps Starcraft ahead of every other competitive game is the fact that it is watched so much. If you make the game slower (which is the most expected outcome if the APM requirement drops by a significant amount) then it simply won't be as enjoyable to watch. Why do you think Warcraft 3 is so far behind Starcraft in terms of popularity in the competitive scene? That's right, because it's slow and boring to watch. I'd really doubt that Blizzard doesn't know this, and (here's the important part) I think they're scared that reducing the amount of macro will reduce the APM and the flow of the games significantly, so they're trying to replace all the stuff that they've automated.
|
On September 04 2009 05:39 Meta wrote: I didn't read the thread or most of the OP, but think of it like this:
In starcraft one, all races had the exact same in-base macro mechanic: telling your workers to mine after they've been produced. I, for one, think that particular mechanic was unimaginative and stale. Thanks to automine, that mechanic has been removed. However, due mostly (I think) to backlash from this particular community, Blizzard decided they needed a similar macro mechanic in SC2. Starcraft being what it is, Blizzard felt all three races needed a different mechanic, but they should all require returning to base regularly and they should all increase macro, just like telling workers to mine did in SC1.
So, when you assert that these extra tasks are "unnecessary," I'll respond that I think telling workers to mine was unnecessary, and more boring than the new mechanics introduced.
It's all boring and fairly frustrating, but the difference (at least asserted by those who've played SC2) is that with setting your workers to mine, it at least felt like it fit. It felt natural and as an evil necessity. From what I've read at least, it seems that these new mechanics are blatantly gimmicky and feel like they've obviously been added to the game with no other purpose than to be a meaningless task to keep you doing stuff. They just don't fit, and that's what needs to be fixed.
|
On September 04 2009 04:57 Stripe wrote: In order to make this game deeper, Blizzard should give players more decisions to make in terms of macro, not implement gimmicky mechanics like the dark pylon where you go to your base every seconds to cast it like a mindless drone.
Agreed. Blizzard needs to find more ways to make mining and unit production interesting and deep. They already did it with unit production for Warp-In.
|
I do agree with the op to some degree.
I always thought of all bw units and buildings as a direct part of the players hand and not something that is loosely connected to it. Sounds confusing but that's why BW is so great for a dedicated player. Everything is at all times yours and your responsibility. Thats why protoss players hate the scarab ai at times, because it's something we can't control anymore once "out of our hands". When i read about the storm-cast delay i cringed because it goes so much against the nature of a brood war player.
I want to be part of everything at all times because i am my muta, my marines and my factorys. Nothing gets done without me explicitly doing it. I don't want to do shit just because i like clicking my keyboard, but because then i'm not just part of the process, i am the process. Every little gimmick is like partially auto-aiming, and that shit can kiss my brood war ass.
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 04 2009 05:32 Stripe wrote: So why should Starcraft 2 stay this way? Wouldn't the ladder be better if they promoted decision making ahead of mechanics right from the very bottom? Isn't it better if the person who understood the matchups more advance ahead of the guy who clicked faster? Again, the thing to recognize is that mechanics shouldn't be emphasized over strategy OR vice versa. The ideal should be that the game requires BOTH to achieve the next level of play. You should never be able to rank up solely off of mechanics, and you should never be able to rank up solely off of strategy. BOTH should be necessary at all levels of play.
|
Can the queen place larvae on enemy creep?
|
On September 04 2009 03:37 EximoSua wrote: I would argue that the old macro tasks in SC1 are more unnecessary, but aren't viewed as such because they are the standard. The macro mechanics give macro to SC2 in a way that's at least modern and kind of interesting, rather than archaic and clumsy.
I wonder if people complained this much about how driving their vehicles became less "pure" and more "casual", when they got to stop turning a crank in order to start their cars...
Good point this.
|
On September 04 2009 05:39 Meta wrote: I didn't read the thread or most of the OP, but think of it like this:
In starcraft one, all races had the exact same in-base macro mechanic: telling your workers to mine after they've been produced. I, for one, think that particular mechanic was unimaginative and stale. Thanks to automine, that mechanic has been removed. However, due mostly (I think) to backlash from this particular community, Blizzard decided they needed a similar macro mechanic in SC2. Starcraft being what it is, Blizzard felt all three races needed a different mechanic, but they should all require returning to base regularly and they should all increase macro, just like telling workers to mine did in SC1.
So, when you assert that these extra tasks are "unnecessary," I'll respond that I think telling workers to mine was unnecessary, and more boring than the new mechanics introduced. the difference being that if we find the macro mechanics unnecessary we can take them out with little effect. if we take out mining altogether the game is broken. if we automate (keyword here) mining, it leaves a void as an aspect of the game is being automated (keyword).
this is not a discussion of a means to a method, it is a discussion of the method itself. we take out mining, game breaks, we take out new macro mechanics game is worse for wear (arguably) but it is intact; that's what makes it essential. presenting an argument like this serves little purpose other than to start a pissing contest.
|
|
|
|