DoW2 was so utterly the opposite of anything remotely resembling "Strategy" so yeah, that was a terrible example :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Pandonetho
Printable View
DoW2 was so utterly the opposite of anything remotely resembling "Strategy" so yeah, that was a terrible example :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Pandonetho
Depends on what your "solution" is. Most RTS makers have tried to increase the amount of micro to compensate. The general idea being if you add enough fun combat stuff then you wont have to have players deal with thier economy.
I didn't call people stupid, but the explanation of why PC has no strategy, or decision making was posted again and again, and seriously, it's as obvious as something can be. No spell has ever been so stupid as to only had *one* place to be casted on, always inside your own bases, and the caster being able to keep the effect constantly active.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
I don't buy the concept of something that dumb to introduce strategy. And judging by the skill requirements, i see no way the macro mechanics can make it past beta in their current forms, unless Blizzard is delusional, or something.
Two questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norfindel
1) Storm was only used on enemy units.. Doesn't that constitute only one place to be casted on?
Or, are you trying to say the map location, which would differ in the same exact way PC would. PC would be dependent on where the resources are, and psi-storm is dependent on where the enemy units are.
2) Why is casting in one spot something that bothers you so much? Is casting an ability in multiple spots something that would make PC more fun? If for example you could also cast PC on enemy workers, decreasing their resource intake, would that make this ability more fun?
I wouldn't think so. Storms needs to be placed so that you will minimize the damage done to your own army. But in fact, I think my opinion on storm is that it really isn't that different from PC. The SC1 high templar had no competing abilities and it was used whenever a bunch of opponents charged at you. It was indeed quite a mindless ability. Well, that's my opinion of it anyway.Quote:
1) Storm was only used on enemy units.. Doesn't that constitute only one place to be casted on?
The main reason I think people like storm is because it kills things, which is a lot more visually outstanding in terms of directing the flow of the game as opposed to PC.
But then again, it's not something that personally for me, would detract from the fun of the game (like PC would) because I like killing things.
Sure, if you don't use it in a battle when you can you're just doing yourself a disservice but it's far from busywork.
Didn't storm also reveal the HT when it was cast?
No, there isn't. We talked about this already. The mechanic itself has no decision making.Quote:
The problem with this question, is that the current mechanics do involve decision making, just apparently not the kind of decision making you believe are decisions. If you had a clear definition of what a "decision" is to be made, then I feel we could make some progress in pointing the "decisions" out to you.
The closest thing to a choice you have is a question of ability: can you keep it up while doing other things. And again, you can get that with abilities that do have decision making.
So basically, you're arguing against what's there solely for expediency's sake. You're saying that Blizzard shouldn't even try because you think it'll take too long to come up with such mechanics. You have a very dim view of Blizzard's design team.Quote:
Secondly, I am all for mechanics that are fun, require skill, and increase resource harvesting. I guess the problem here is... Sc2 doesn't have 20 years for you to actually think a mechanic like that up for each race.
And I wouldn't make it a single mechanic per race. Because decision-making mechanics generally work against repetition, the correct solution is to have lots of these mechanics, which will be used as needed. That need may come up in the middle of battle, and if it is not used then, it will provide a diminished return later.
It wouldn't be limited to increasing resource harvesting either, as that is the least interesting part of macro.
How can you know? You won't define what StarCraft is.Quote:
3: Starcraft isnt the game for Nicol.
Don't forget that there must be at least 2 viable options when making the decision.Quote:
Good decision requires a strategic choice that is based on your limited intelligence of the situation, and each option should carry risks along with gains.
The primary factor that causes player skill stratification nowadays in SC is ability, not strategy. Can you execute X rather than choosing between X and Y. The strategic aspect has, more or less, distilled down into several known builds (generally called "standard play") and a number of riskier builds and timings.Quote:
Pardon the presumptive attitude, but I assume Starcraft garners its lasting power from its strategic sophistication.
This is pretty much guaranteed to happen to some degree with any long-running game (even Go has some fairly standard openings and reactions). The question is how many different kinds of builds do you get that are viable, as well as the variety of riskier builds.
Enemy units do not constitute a place. Because they move. Your mineral patches and Nexii aren't going anywhere.Quote:
1) Storm was only used on enemy units.. Doesn't that constitute only one place to be casted on?
And that doesn't even deal with the fact that it's much more effective against certain units than others, so the outcome isn't the same each time. Plus, it's on a unit that has to be out on the field, and thus is subject to sniping and must be protected.
The differences are legion.
Because I'm a human being, not a computer. Route busywork is for computers, not people.Quote:
Why is casting in one spot something that bothers you so much?
Damn man, you're the guy who supports having robots do everything and one day robots will rule the world like in the Matrix because of advocates like you. (Joke post) I'm actually totally serious.Quote:
Because I'm a human being, not a computer. Route busywork is for computers, not people.
I got one my self.Quote:
Originally Posted by athe1st
No, enemy units move around the map. Psi Storm even affects your own units, so using it while you have your own Zealots there is not trivial, and must be casted on a precise instant to maximize damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Santrega
Enemy can dodge, and/or kill the HT. In fact, trying to maximize damage, trying to dodge, keep the HT alive, and kill them are very important skills. Psi Storm is an ability where the skill of both players are directly measured against each other.
Also, Psi Storm is used anywhere on the map, and your caster is vulnerable.
It's orders of magnitude more interesting.
Resource position is known before the game starts, is constantly revealed, and don't change unless you edit the map.Quote:
Originally Posted by Santrega
Because that's completely predictable, and boring, and people don't like repetitive tasks. What's more fun, playing Poker 100 times, or counting how many cards do you have 100 times?Quote:
Originally Posted by Santrega
If it could also be casted over enemy workers, that would at least add something (assuming you don't need a proxy Obelisk), but as long as the main mechanic remains, it's going to be a lot safer to just cast on your own base. Anyways, it's much better to just attack the enemy workers than slowing them down for a while.
.
I think I have you guys... If psi-storm is indeed different because the target moves, as you guys have said in the following quotes:
I didnt want to respond to this quote, but I do want to mention that the Obelisk must be put on the map before the ability is used, and its subject to sniping and must be protected. There was not a difference there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
You are saying the fact that the units are moving make casting psi-storm more fun. As in, its fun that you might miss... Even though you always cast it on enemy units. What you have said makes PC not fun is the fact it is only busy work, and can only be casted easily in the same spot over and over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norfindel
Okay,
I suggest PC's range be reduced to 1/4th. Making you have to cast it 4 times to get the same effect you would currently casting it one time. With this smaller range you will have a chance to miss your probes, thus adding to the "fun" of the game. If it's fun to try and hit moving targets with psi-storm, it must be fun to try and hit gathering probes with PC. Now, if you want to stop the probes and group them together so you never miss them with your 4 casts, then thats fine, but thats your decision. That decision also has a downside, while you maximize your ability's effect, you also waste valuable time not gathering resources.
Now, the downside to this move is you just took busy work and multiplied it by 4. However, as long is there is the Psi-Storm fun effect, it should be well worth it. The pro's will be very happy, think of all the macro they get!!!
Well if you can safely cast it from a distance on an enemy base, it would hold some advantage over using units to do it. For example, if there is a heavily guarded base which will make you lose a somewhat large amount of units. Maybe you could use it there, and attack a different location which is less guarded, hurting their economy even more. If this was added to the ability, at least it would provide a competing choice for energy. If you can cast it at the same time, with both having individual cool downs, it would be competing with the other because you would want to reduce the enemy economy, while increasing your own. If you use the energy for the enemy, you are not using the energy for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norfindel
There's a difference between "fun" and fun. Making a mindless action 4x more tedious is missing the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Santrega
It wasn't made 4x more tedious. It was made 4x more work. But the argument has been made that it is fun to try and hit things with abilities, so all that was added was more work, and more fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco
There was no point draco, because the point keeps changing. It's either too much work, or its not fun, decide which it is. If you add something which 2 of the individuals fighting against it have both said is fun, then the ability is fun. So obviously if you still have a problem, its not because of the fun, its because of the additional work required.
Perhaps partial auras can be fun, but from the way you put it, it seemed like you were just dividing the aura into quarters and every time you normally do 1 big aura, you just do 4. More work for the same effect is tedium. I'm not going to quibble over the idea. As long as you have fun and strategy in mind, and you follow through with those goals, the design will eventually converge to something better than it is now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Santrega
I literally laughed out loud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandonetho
Anyway, I think the BR is gonna come out today.
Why is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by n00bonicPlague
the laugh or the guess at BR4?Quote:
Originally Posted by supersonic
Santrega does a good job of pointing out the flaws in the binary logic you guys are using.
I never mentioned anything about Psi storm or having a chance to miss something is fun. I think that's what you'd call a strawman. Regardless of those deflections, my points and their points equivalent to my points still stand.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
Swing-and-a-miss.Quote:
If psi-storm is indeed different because the target moves
You specifically equated Psi Storm to PC because they both target one "kind" of thing. The response was therefore specifically about the differences between those "kinds" of things, because they have fundamentally different properties, thus invalidating your claim.
However, at no time was it stated by anyone that the differences between the targets are the sole differences between Psi Storm and PC. These were simply the responses to your attempt to equate "enemy units" with "workers in your mineral line".
There's a difference between "on the map" and "on the field". High Templar, in order to be useful, must be near the enemy. The Obelisks doing PC cannot be useful near the enemy (unless that enemy is in your base). Thus they are not subject to sniping (especially since they have quite a few Hp), and only have to be protected as much as you're protecting the worker line and other features of your base. This does not compare in any way to HT.Quote:
I do want to mention that the Obelisk must be put on the map before the ability is used, and its subject to sniping and must be protected. There was not a difference there.
Killing Probes is always better than killing the Obelisk anyway.
This is but one of the differences between Psi Storm and PC. And it's missing half the point: where your enemy is and how they react to Psi Storm (or potential Psi Storms) is the important part. You are planning how to use Psi Storms, and they are planing how to avoid them. Both of you fight, one of you executes better, and thus one side has gained an advantage.Quote:
You are saying the fact that the units are moving make casting psi-storm more fun. As in, its fun that you might miss... Even though you always cast it on enemy units. What you have said makes PC not fun is the fact it is only busy work, and can only be casted easily in the same spot over and over.
It's not a simple matter of "possibly missing units is fun!" You can't qualify the effects of an ability like Psi Storm so simply.
This indeed shows one of the limitations of macro, something I've been thinking about for awhile now: it's passive by default.
What makes Psi Storm not busywork is all of the little decisions involved, both by you and your opponent. You're trying to force them into bottlenecks where you can use the minimum quantity of Psi Storm. They're trying to snipe your Templar, and you're trying to stop them. Etc. Even just the ability itself has this. Do you place a storm where his units are right now, or where they are moving towards in an attempt to herd his units? In what direction do his units move to Storm Dodge, and how do you place your Storms to make him move where you want? And so forth.
Psi Storm is a competitive ability. All competitive abilities share these features. Even a spell that only can affect one specific enemy unit still has these features (so long as it's a viable spell rather than too weak/ineffective to use). To date, no macro abilities are directly competitive.
Oh, there's the macro race. One player tries to macro more than the opponent. But that's not direct competition; that's running against a clock. Indeed, you can practice your macro perfectly well without an opponent at all.
An actual fight, a competitive ability, involves having to react to plays by your opponent, while trying to control what your opponent does next. It involves direct conflict, where one player's victory is another player's defeat. You can only practice competitive abilities against, you know, competition.
In short, macro as it has been up until now is passive rather than active. Making macro active I feel is a key to cracking the macro problem. If you can use your macro to attack someone's macro (or even micro?) and have them respond in kind, with direct attacks and defenses that are not entirely unlike micro, then you'll have real macro.
Actually no. Your macroing against the other person, not a clock. Dont try and call it macroing against a clock when its macroing against a person. Its a competition just a different kind of competition. You may not like that part of Starcraft (cause it doesnt involve guns and decision making) but its still the foundation of Starcraft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
Now admitedly most of the RTS genre is moving away from the "APM busywork" emphasis. There was a good interview of a C&C4 designer that showcassed this sentiment. I dont mean this in any kind of hostile way but perhaps Starcraft isnt really the game for some of you.
Quote:
Strategy Informer: Command & Conquer 4 is introducing a new degree of accessibility for series newcomers. How do you think hardcore C&C players will respond to that?
Jim Vessella: When we announced the game a few weeks ago, we got a bunch of feedback online and some of the fans were really excited about the direction we’re taking with C&C 4, while some of the hardcore fans were a little wary about where we’re taking it. The thing we really want to express is just because we’re changing up the gameplay a bit, it doesn’t mean that we are removing strategic depth from the game. In fact we’re actually opening it up a little bit. It’s not as much about your build order or how fast your APM (Actions Per Minute) can build up your base, but instead it’s more about how you react on the battlefield in terms of working with your team-mates, in terms of choosing your classes and what units you use in battle and where you position yourself. I think there’s going to be a lot of gameplay there for the hardcore RTS players, there’s going to be a lot of units that utilise micro and players can use that in certain situations to gain a tactical advantage. I just want to emphasise that we’re not removing any strategic depth, so I hope the hardcore players will still give it a shot.
I'd argue that the battles themselves are what you're talking about. Each unit represents the cost of its resources, and depending on the outcome of the battle, it either relatively weakens your opponents resource pool or weakens your own. So, if you approach macro from that angle, there'll be too much overlap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
Macro abilities can have a competitive edge if they affect build order timings. Like my Mule as a temporary super SCV idea, you are directly shaping the strategic environment through your macro decisions.
Oh, for God's sake!
Psi Storm = you try to hit enemy units in a battle scenario. It's player skill vs player skill.
PC = you hit your own Probes.
See the difference?
Ever played a PvP when both of the players use Psi Storm, and both have nearly the same skill? I did. It's a shitload of fun trying to keep your units alive, while you storm the enemy units, try to dodge his storms, try to snipe or storm most of his HT's, and decide where the storms do the most damage, etc.
How is PCing your own Probes as fun as that?
You know what would be more interesting than the current macro mechanics? Use the silo mechanics with some kind of special gas deposits that renew after a while, and can be put anywhere by the map maker. So, you're out there in the middle of nowhere, getting your precious gas, and trying to keep the silo alive, while it does it's magick. Even more: the resources obtained with the Silo could be required to be carried by a worker to a Nexus/CC/Hatchery, and the worker could be attacked to steal the resources. That would be more fun.
.
Um, how is it macroing against the other person? Can the other person's macro hurt you? Not directly. Can their macro slow down your macro? No. So why does the other person need to be there if both of your are in macro-mode?Quote:
Your macroing against the other person, not a clock. Dont try and call it macroing against a clock when its macroing against a person. Its a competition just a different kind of competition.
What you're trying to do is macro faster than the other person. It is as much a competition as a race. There is only one dimension of a race: time. Who's doing it faster. You can run as fast as you can, but you have no effect on how fast your opponent runs.
A race is ultimately about you and the goal line. People gain a psychological boost from being in a race with people, but that's only a mental thing.
Micro requires direct competition. Your gain is your enemy's loss. You affect them and they affect you. Micro cannot exist in a vacuum. This is necessarily more complex than a simple race.
So, is that your definition of StarCraft? That it specifically doesn't involve decision making?Quote:
You may not like that part of Starcraft (cause it doesnt involve guns and decision making) but its still the foundation of Starcraft.
Why do you equate "busywork" with "macro" and "removal of busywork" with "micro"? That article is about them working on a game that is focused on micro. That is not what I'm talking about.Quote:
Now admitedly most of the RTS genre is moving away from the "APM busywork" emphasis. There was a good interview of a C&C4 designer that showcassed this sentiment. I dont mean this in any kind of hostile way but perhaps Starcraft isnt really the game for some of you.
Is decision-making macro really so alien to you that you can't possibly imagine it?
Further, that article only proves that the designer doesn't know what he's talking about. He, like a lot of people, sees "macro" as just route busywork, and thus tries to replace it with micro. The proper course of action is to replace route busywork with decision making that is still macro.
I notice you say not directly. I assume thats because you agree that you are macroing against the other person indirectly. I understand your mindset. Allot of people would rather an RTS was more about direct combat. And to fit that mindset most RTS makers have focused more on the shooting and explosions stuff. So if youd rather that your RTS was more about direct confrontation I would look for a more micro RTS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
In a way yes. Its a race against the opponent. If thats how you want to think of it then think of it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
Now could you make a RTS where you had to race against the opponent but you had to make a decision everytime you did the racing action? Maybe. But this game would require a structure radically different from Starcrafts.
It's clear to me now that this is simply a second interface argument. The same old story, just with different people.
People are saying that they want things in the game that are fun, and not tedious. Whether something is busy-work, it's tedious, or its fun, is entirely dependent on the person playing the game. In so many area's starcraft II has improved the interface to minimize the parts of the game which were frustrating and not fun. However, afterward they realized they needed a higher skill ceiling, and something to which a player could strive to be better at.
I still believe the answer to that realization is the macro mechanics as they currently are. Anything in the game can be called tedious by someone, or not fun by someone else, or busy work. At the end of the day, blizzard has two goals.
1) Make the game a great game
2) Make the game a great sport
The tedious aspects that you guys see are simply the parts of the game which will separate the men from the boys. Those people who really want to just overwhelm people with macro will get 3-4 different spots going all the time with these macro mechanics. Those people who just want everything to be easy, will get what they want. They will not use the macro mechanics, and they'll face other people who don't use the macro mechanics from first-class delivery into an even match by the AMM.
You guys may think what you want is obvious, so did most of those claiming the game is too easy with rally-mining and MBS. The macro mechanics will not be replaced, and PC may get altered, but it also will not be replaced. You can cry and complain all you like, but until beta, and a mass uprising, there is no way in hell blizzard is going to throw out that mechanic, even if dustin believes it needs something more. If they never find that something, it will be in the game as is.
It's pretty obvious that something mindless is already not fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Santrega
Technically difficult things don't have to be tedious and they can still distinguish the good from the bad.
Ok, i presented my thoughts of why i think the macro mechanics are boring:
They're casted on the same place every time, on your own base, at known intervals.
Can someone present convincent arguments on why they're fun?
What is it with the whole "Starcraft may not be the game for you" bullshit? I'll be damned if I don't make this game my bitch! :D Seriously — it's not like the differences we are talking here are big enough to make us just quit and try another game. The issues are right around the current macro mechanics. It's not the actual existence or absence of macro that is the problem — most of us want macro mechanics of some form. It's just that we want different kinds. We are nowhere near the level of "this isn't the game for you" or whatever, so quit bringing it up.
That was allittle harsh. Ill rephrase it as "there may be parts about this game that you dont like". However if you did want a game with more direct competition, combat abilities, micro decision making, less farming, etc... then you should try out DOW2, C&C4 and many of the other RTSs that favor that philosophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by n00bonicPlague
hes right though, How many of you arguing about this are even on or ever been on at least a team that played in decent leagues? how many of you have been B or higher on iccup? etc.
This argument is kinda a moot point, because anyone who is decent isnt concerned about pressing a button every 45 seconds. thats nothing.
The point is that this game should not be a game aimed at professionals watered down for casuals. It should be a game made for casuals with competitive aspects that professionals and casuals both will like.
Of course that goes without saying the two categories are quite different so naturally they'd have differing opinions.
However, Warp-in is somewhat of a miracle, it seems like everyone so far likes it and it makes for a good macro mechanic. This is what Nicol or the others on his side are striving for.
Warp-in is subtle in a way. The idea of it is exciting, the casual mind thinks "friggen awesome, I can warp my dudes anywhere I want within pylon power!" and the professional goes, sweet, a fun mechanic that is also viable as a good macro mechanic. However, the "professionals" are also perfectly fine with repetitive actions because repetitive action requires skill to pull off (most other people would just forget, wouldn't have the mind set to continually do it, or would just get bored of it).
I must say that I am very excited about Warp-In — next to that, the Reactor and Tech Lab. I am definitely in favor of some sort of larvae mechanic, but Spawn Larva is fairly bothersome in its current form. I had a much greater preference for the Mutant Larvae ability that allowed for quick units. I'm not sure if anyone has read my Queen idea, but the concept of a "Mobile Hatchery" has some serious potential.
There's that "failure of imagination" I was talking about. Why does direct confrontation always have to deal with "shooting and explosions stuff," with units firing at other units? Is that some immutable law etched into the nature of the universe at its creation? Or is it just that you can't imagine what such a game would be like because nobody's made such a game yet?Quote:
Allot of people would rather an RTS was more about direct combat. And to fit that mindset most RTS makers have focused more on the shooting and explosions stuff. So if youd rather that your RTS was more about direct confrontation I would look for a more micro RTS.
Adding a dimension of confrontation to macro would make it much more interesting, and allow mechanics that would otherwise be busywork to gain decision making.
It's funny. Nowhere in that entire spiel was there one word against decision-making mechanics. You simply state that "things as they are now are as perfect as they will ever be," and you consider this an argument against everything else.Quote:
It's clear to me now that this is simply a second interface argument. The same old story, just with different people.
...
They will not use the macro mechanics, and they'll face other people who don't use the macro mechanics from first-class delivery into an even match by the AMM.
Saying that something is good does not make it good. You have to show how it is good, and if other people show how it isn't good, then you have to show that their logic or evidence is wrong.
Really? Why are the macro mechanics as they currently stand so perfect that they're guaranteed to stay? The gas mechanic, in various forms, was in for just as long if not longer. What makes these mechanics so special?Quote:
The macro mechanics will not be replaced, and PC may get altered, but it also will not be replaced. You can cry and complain all you like, but until beta, and a mass uprising, there is no way in hell blizzard is going to throw out that mechanic, even if dustin believes it needs something more. If they never find that something, it will be in the game as is.
Ahh, the elitist non-argument that "we haven't played SC enough, so we don't get a say." Sorry, but that kind of crap doesn't constitute an argument. That may fly over at GosuGamers or TL.Net, but not here.Quote:
How many of you arguing about this are even on or ever been on at least a team that played in decent leagues? how many of you have been B or higher on iccup?
That, I disagree with. What I want is two things:Quote:
The point is that this game should not be a game aimed at professionals watered down for casuals. It should be a game made for casuals with competitive aspects that professionals and casuals both will like.
1: The player improvement curve to be a lot less sharp than SC1. There is a huge gap between minimally competent and noobie. SC2 needs to smooth that out.
2: Not to base the skill curve on busywork.
Not really. Oh, that's what they think, right up until they find out that WarpGates have no build queues. Then they'll have a real tradeoff to make.Quote:
The idea of it is exciting, the casual mind thinks "friggen awesome, I can warp my dudes anywhere I want within pylon power!"
And I think Warp-In is an almost perfect mechanic in this regard. If your mechanical skills aren't up to scratch, then you really can't convert all your Gateways willy nilly to WarpGates. Now, you can convert a few and rely on build queues for the rest.
As your mechanical skills improve, you can convert more and more of your Gateways over.
That's a really lame argument. I've played enough Starcraft to at least know what's going on at the professional level, but just because I don't practice 6 hours everyday for 7 years to unconsciously work every build order, doesn't mean I'm incapable of determining whether a new mechanic is mindless or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyze
It's called lack of a better argument.
You just recognized that the macro mechanics aren't going to solve anything, you know :).Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyze
Im just saying, at a "casual" level of play, you guys could still win ANY game vs eachother without using the macro mechanics at all, it IS an option, it is not forced on you to use. Its the same as building 8 scvs vs building 12 scvs, Some people choose to build less, but doesnt mean they instantly lose.
At lower levels of play, 50 minerals every minute isnt going to make a huge difference.
I still stand by the notion that anyone complaining that the obelisk is imbalanced and "forced" on you, I GUARANTEE that Bisu would beat you PvP without using it at all, and you use it as much as you want. Or any pro, even non-korean top players could still win games without using the obelisk vs "casual" people who use it. Therefor it isnt gamebreaking, it doesnt affect the outcome of the game directly, it is not an issue. If you complain about this for casual players, then well, I dont know what to say.
And besides, bitching about stupid little concerns you have about the game for casual players (which doesnt even really effect the outcome of the game, as I said) is so pointless, esp when the game hasnt even reached beta yet to test these things. Whats the point of this 24 page argument, what are you guys trying to accomplish exactly?
If you know whats going on in the pro scene, and if you assume to think you need 6 hours everyday for 7 years to develope "unconscious build orders", then whats the issue with the Obelisk being mindless?? Knowing every build order is NOT mindless?? The Obelisk has just as much a choice to use as using dragoons vs terran; You can still win without it, but of course its going to help you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco
I still dont understand why people are complaining about this.. If you are saying its "mindless".. EVERYTHING in SC is mindless clicking, The "mental" side of SC isnt really in casual gaming because all you need to win in casual games is a decent build order (and no, you dont need to copy a korean; Ive been at the top of every beta ive played in on strats I came up with within 10 games, so I dunno what happened, no studying for 6 hours a day 7 years??)
I really dont think there is anything we can complain about being imbalanced or useless until beta is here and we all have more time testing the game. Right now, you guys are just feeding Demosquid's trolling efforts to remove everything about SC he doesnt like, not because theres a reasonable flaw in the mechanic, but just because Demosquid wants SC to be exactly the same (since 2009 started, it seems every week he has a stupid sig saying "remove this unit!"with no reasoning behind it, and people feed into it, I have no idea why)
It's to demonstrate a point that while it may require years of dedication to actually execute those BOs flawlessly, understanding them does not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyze
No one's talking about balance. The pitfalls of SC1 shouldn't justify the pitfalls of SC2. There's plenty of thoughtful actions in both SC1 and SC2. We're not looking to make the game easier. Right now, an action is required of you every X seconds from these macro abilities, instead of it just being a push of the button, why not make it a calculated decision that adds strategic depth beyond what SC1 had to offer? That's our reason for the complaint.
Of course any Joe Smoe can memorize what the innovators are doing, but to truly integrate the strategies into your playstyle and adapt in-game is what separates the casuals apart from the pros. That takes time and dedication. This suggestion that we turn a mindless action into a strategic one will only benefit those innovators and provide more of a distinction between the copycats and trail blazers. There is no detriment. It's a straight-up benefit for the game.
SC2 isn't SC1. SC2 should offer stuff beyond what SC1 had to offer. This is an opportunity to do so. Arguing that it's fine and already balanced like SC1 is missing the picture. That's a complacent attitude.