What happened to the innovation?

[ArcherofAiur]

Except that it doesn't improve anything. In several cases, it's just as bad as having to put workers on minerals.

No your wrong. There is no way your going to convince people that using the current macro mechanics is as bad as manual mining. Just look on the forums at the number of people who love using the macro mechanics. Even on the BNet forums which are typically newer, casual and more micro oriented players!

[DemolitionSquid]

Demo why are you ignoring the part about "The Tempest didn't feel right"?
Of course they don't give specifics! When did they give specifics about unit removals?

I'm not ignoring it, I'm literally pointing out that Blizzard didn't scrap the Tempest because it was broken, or unfun, or didn't fit its niche, or that there was in fact anything wrong with it gameplay or mechanics-wise. Browder is straight up confirming it was removed because it "didn't FEEL right" and the Carrier was put back in for nostalgia. Its all connected man.

... just cause it wasn't a cool new fighting unit.

This is why you need to shut up. Please.

Fact is, do you know why any new people will start playing SC? Do you know what's going to be put on the box showcasing the game to kids in the local gamestop?

Here's a hint: it's not "Macro." Its Thors, Motherships, and Roaches.

[TunaFish]

I still think it'd be awesome if this game had subfaction style tech branches.

I'm a fan of how Ensemble Studios accomplished this in Age of Mythology; have 3 distinct races that have sub-factions that add unique bonuses, techs, strategic abilities, and a few specialty units. Adds depth without playing hell with balance. Of course, AoM was often unbalanced, but for other reasons.

[ArcherofAiur]

Fact is, do you know why any new people will start playing SC? Do you know what's going to be put on the box showcasing the game to kids in the local gamestop?

Here's a hint: it's not "Macro." Its Thors, Motherships, and Roaches.

And do you know why they will still be playing it competitively 12 years later?

Heres a hint, its not the shiny Mothership...

[DemolitionSquid]

And do you know why they will still be playing it 12 years later?

The map editor.

Could SC2 survive without fun units? No.
Could SC2 survive without the 3 macro mechanics? Absolutely.

[ArcherofAiur]

Could SC2 survive without fun units? No.
Could SC2 survive without the 3 macro mechanics? Absolutely.

LOL lets go ask a decade of other RTS games that have chosen flashy units over core game mechanics....

[Nicol Bolas]

There is no way your going to convince people that using the current macro mechanics is as bad as manual mining.

Of course they are. It's new. It's different. Even though mechanically it's the exact same thing (do X every Y seconds) it feels different to them.

Once the newness wears off, they'll see it for what it is: something that is best automated.

I'm literally pointing out that Blizzard didn't scrap the Tempest because it was broken, or unfun, or didn't fit its niche, or that there was in fact anything wrong with it gameplay or mechanics-wise.

That's what "it didn't feel right" meant. They gave a similarly nebulous reply for the removal of the Soul Hunter: it wasn't working out.

[ArcherofAiur]

Once the newness wears off, they'll see it for what it is: something that is best automated.

Get back to me in 12 years

[DemolitionSquid]

That's what "it didn't feel right" meant. They gave a similarly nebulous reply for the removal of the Soul Hunter: it wasn't working out.

I had no idea "FEEL" and "WORKING" were now synonyms. Silly dictionary

LOL lets go ask a decade of other RTS games that have chosen flashy units over core game mechanics....

I said nothing about removing core gameplay mechanics. Base building, UI, macro would all still be there. If we removed Chrono Boost, MULES, and Spawn Larva it wouldn't have an impact on the quality of the game. They are extras, and they are broken, and I would not miss them, nor would 99% of the players. What I would miss is the Colossus, or the Nydus Network, or the Raven, because they fill important roles needed for the game to be balanced and function.

The macro mechanics do not.

[sandwich_bird]

Speaking of intellectual bankruptcy, there it is in its most raw, naked form. The unfailing belief that there's nothing new, that it's all been done, so we shouldn't bother to try.

Prove me wrong? Go on, find me more than 5 possible and realistic ways (your ideas or anyone else ideas) we could drastically alter the RTS experience while still having a fun game that would generate a lot of profits in today's world. You're gonna have a hard time. Now evaluate the possibility of actually making a sequel to Starcraft 1(and so limiting yourself to the unclear boundaries imposed by making a successor) while using one or more than one of the ideas you presented. In fact, all of you saying that there are barely any innovations in Starcraft 2 should try.

Criticizing and complaining are easy, innovating is not. As far as the entertainment business goes, I believe that innovation by altering the crust that surrounds the core of the experience is the only smart and possible way to go in respect to the goal desired by the action of creating a product. This goal is obviously to make something fun that will (and not would) sell.