Brontoforumus Archive

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:


This board has been fossilized.
You are reading an archive of Brontoforumus, a.k.a. The Worst Forums Ever, from 2008 to early 2014.  Registration and posting (for most members) has been disabled here to discourage spambots from taking over.  Old members can still log in to view boards, PMs, etc.

The new message board is at http://brontoforum.us.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 22

Author Topic: Starcraft II  (Read 20798 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Starcraft II
« Reply #100 on: May 25, 2010, 12:36:47 PM »

I was going to add this, but decided to separate it.

When Frocto brought up the Engineer in TF2, he raised something important, perhaps without realizing it.

In the Engie, Valve managed to introduce a class who is far less dependent on on raw point-and-click hand eye coordination. A class that makes fewer decisions than those which are constantly in combat, but whose decisions can have far greater consequences. An engie can be a commanding presence on the battlefield and alter the flow of the entire battle. In this sense, he is a real, working example of a game that found a way to decrease the quantity of decisions you can make, but increasing the quality of the remaining decisions - and doing so without denying players the more conventional skill outlets.  

Does that make him 'better' than other classes? No. Does it mean he requires 'no skill' or have a low ceiling? No. But he requires different skills. And yet in spite of his his different skillset, he's an integral part of the game, just as much as any other class.

Now, a truly skilled player can get maximum use out of the engineer by using his more conventional combat skills to fight his way to nasty locations for sentries, to stay alive longer, to defend his sentry better, to lure players into his sentry position, or do any number of other things. But all of the engie's core abilities can be used by players of lesser physical skill.

The engineer is a crucial piece of the TF2 puzzle, allowing people like me a level of participation in the game that they would otherwise be denied.

It's brilliant, it's innovative, it sells games, and it's fun.

I don't know what an "RTS engie" game or game faction looks like, but that's basically what I'm looking for.
Logged

Kayin

  • Akzidenz Grotesk
  • Tested
  • Karma: 30
  • Posts: 1215
    • View Profile
    • I Wanna Be The Guy
Re: Starcraft II
« Reply #101 on: May 25, 2010, 01:10:27 PM »

I didn't mean to imply that all that was directed at you. I babble, but you are taking me a little out of context too, so lets be fair. I never implied people are dumb for not being good to that they should play GIRLY TBS GAMES (Well, I said TBS is a very real option. I'm not saying TBS is bad!).... people just (and they do this ALL THE TIME) assume they're better than the guy who just beat them because of some goofy reason or another. Also yeah, great players are often CLUELESS about their own game, balance wise, though it is still usually some of the best players who understand the balance the best (oddly usually not THE best, but the guys just under that. I couldn't begin to tell you why, but I think it has to do with the best players being so good that everything is super skewed for them, while the simply great players still have perspective).

BUT there is some things that I absolutely do not agree with you on (or at least something I view as an unrealistic expectation) that does not result from either of us being a little flippant.

Quote
it's the job of game designer to make fun games that as many people as possible should enjoy.

This is wrong. It's the job of a game designer to make games as fun as possible for whatever group they want to make it for. IWBTG is designed to appeal to a very particular niche as much as possible. You gotta leave people behind to avoid mediocrity and quite often, but be super great to some people, you gotta leave a lot of people behind. This isn't a very good generalization to make about what game designers should or should not be doing. It's not good to have that sense of entitlement either. I don't buy games and expect them to pander to me, I buy games when Is ee "Oh hey, this is a game thats designed to be something I like!"

To go with what you're saying, the theoretical game you describe sounds really fucking boring. I'd never play it in a million years! It actually sounds BACKWARD to me, but if someone made it and you loved it and it had it's own little community that wanted something a little bit more realistic (but obviously not actually realistic), then cool, whatever, have fun! I play flight sims, which are probably the BORINGEST BORING THINGS EVER TO BORE BORINGTOWN (Edit: Correction, that goes to my flight sim buddy who also plays SUBMARINE sims. That is the boringest genre!)... but hey, I don't care! :D

Quote
The best games allow players of all skill levels to play together, without disproprotionately penalizing skilled players

This is cute and all, but no. If you're having a team based game then yes, this should be the goal. If you're making a party game then yes, this should be the goal in normal situations, but if you're talking about a game that is primarily played in a 1v1 style like Star Craft, the game is about COMPARING SKILL I've never played a game that was a good 1v1 competitive game and was also accessible and was easy for people of diverse skill levels to play together fairly. I guess in MAGIC LAND that might be somehow possible, but generally the concessions necessary to do that would certainly hurt the game. Starcraft is particularly rough but is also the most successful competitive game ever.

Also again, the engineer example has no actual relevance. It works because he can benefit from the skills of OTHER PLAYERS, same as the medic. When their are no other players, well... There goes everything!
Logged

Makaris

  • Just chill'n
  • Tested
  • Karma: 7
  • Posts: 388
    • View Profile
Re: Starcraft II
« Reply #102 on: May 25, 2010, 01:15:49 PM »

@ Mongrel, in essence I respect what your aiming at here.  But in the end, it's not really an argument for or against StarCraft.  StarCraft is what it is.  It's not for EVERYONE, but claiming it violates some 'rules of design' or something is being somewhat ignorant of what makes good games good.

I would like to see more innovation of course.  An entirely tangential new genre that tests new skills and what not.  But that's what what a general RTS is.  It would be something else at that point.  And it would probably suck!  It might not, but just probably.  It could be refined to be notshit, but it would take a lot of experimentation.

And we shouldn't be dismissive of Turn Based Strategy games.  Honestly speaking, if we want to remove the time critical aspects of the game we might as well just make it turn based.  IT's just that most TBS video games, so far, fail in some major capacity.  Best I've played was Age of Wonders, but it suffered from some imbalances that injured attempts to play the game seriously.

In general though, I know the gist of what you're saying.  You basically want to have a low skill ceiling so that anyone can pick up and play the game without being left in the dust by really good players.  But what I think you may be missing is that if the pro's don't feel like they're improving, they won't stick around.  The scene will die.

Edit:  Damnit Kayin stop saying the same things I'm saying with more better words.

Edit 2 cause I just saw Mongrels Engie Post:  
Playing 'like an Engie' in a StarCraft would be, in my opinion, like turtling.  Turtling is a valid strategy.  

Now, it's true you need a certain minimum of APM to compete in StarCraft, but it's not RADICALLY out of reach, and it'll be even lower in StarCraft 2.  I think most people are figuring you can play pretty competitively with an APM of ~80, which isn't really that hard to manage.  I think when I first sat down to mess with StarCraft 2 and didn't know really what I was doing I hovered at 60-70, just to put that into perspective!  During clutch situations, even the worst player can EASILY shoot up to 300!  It's just a matter of having that sort of energized level of thought all the time.

One of the very best players, Idra, is known for his utter passivity and turtling, being totally anathema to rushing or intensely micro'd battles.  He hangs back, defends with the minimum required effort, builds up his forces, and then steam rolls the enemy.  

Maybe that's not exactly like 'playing like an engie', but I think it goes to show how different skills sets can be brought to the fore in order to win.
Logged

Makaris

  • Just chill'n
  • Tested
  • Karma: 7
  • Posts: 388
    • View Profile
Re: Starcraft II
« Reply #103 on: May 25, 2010, 01:32:09 PM »

I remember when I played Submarine Sims with those guys and I broke the game by being overly aggressive.  I dont' think the designers expected that someone would try that sort of stuff.  The entire game bugged to hell with enemy ships sinking to the bottom of the ocean faster than the speed of sound.

My sub was painted red and probably had a shark face drawn on the front.

Goddamn those games are bad.
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Starcraft II
« Reply #104 on: May 25, 2010, 01:34:49 PM »

I didn't mean to imply that all that was directed at you. I babble, but you are taking me a little out of context too, so lets be fair. I never implied people are dumb for not being good to that they should play GIRLY TBS GAMES (Well, I said TBS is a very real option. I'm not saying TBS is bad!).... people just (and they do this ALL THE TIME) assume they're better than the guy who just beat them because of some goofy reason or another. Also yeah, great players are often CLUELESS about their own game, balance wise, though it is still usually some of the best players who understand the balance the best (oddly usually not THE best, but the guys just under that. I couldn't begin to tell you why, but I think it has to do with the best players being so good that everything is super skewed for them, while the simply great players still have perspective).

BUT there is some things that I absolutely do not agree with you on (or at least something I view as an unrealistic expectation) that does not result from either of us being a little flippant.

Quote
it's the job of game designer to make fun games that as many people as possible should enjoy.

This is wrong. It's the job of a game designer to make games as fun as possible for whatever group they want to make it for. IWBTG is designed to appeal to a very particular niche as much as possible. You gotta leave people behind to avoid mediocrity and quite often, but be super great to some people, you gotta leave a lot of people behind. This isn't a very good generalization to make about what game designers should or should not be doing. It's not good to have that sense of entitlement either. I don't buy games and expect them to pander to me, I buy games when Is ee "Oh hey, this is a game thats designed to be something I like!"

To go with what you're saying, the theoretical game you describe sounds really fucking boring. I'd never play it in a million years! It actually sounds BACKWARD to me, but if someone made it and you loved it and it had it's own little community that wanted something a little bit more realistic (but obviously not actually realistic), then cool, whatever, have fun! I play flight sims, which are probably the BORINGEST BORING THINGS EVER TO BORE BORINGTOWN (Edit: Correction, that goes to my flight sim buddy who also plays SUBMARINE sims. That is the boringest genre!)... but hey, I don't care! :D

Quote
The best games allow players of all skill levels to play together, without disproprotionately penalizing skilled players

This is cute and all, but no. If you're having a team based game then yes, this should be the goal. If you're making a party game then yes, this should be the goal in normal situations, but if you're talking about a game that is primarily played in a 1v1 style like Star Craft, the game is about COMPARING SKILL I've never played a game that was a good 1v1 competitive game and was also accessible and was easy for people of diverse skill levels to play together fairly. I guess in MAGIC LAND that might be somehow possible, but generally the concessions necessary to do that would certainly hurt the game. Starcraft is particularly rough but is also the most successful competitive game ever.

Also again, the engineer example has no actual relevance. It works because he can benefit from the skills of OTHER PLAYERS, same as the medic. When their are no other players, well... There goes everything!

The main mistake I think you're making (and the thing I am failing to communicate) is that you need to provide different paths to victory so that players with different proficiencies have options that fit their expertise.

Each requires skill, and perhaps there is some overlap, but not the same skills. Right now there is some variation between factions in games, but for the most part those factions are not very different when you boil it down.  

I mean if someone's bad at everything and is also a douchebag, then no, that's not a player any game designer should be appealing to. I also agree that games that appeal to the lowest common denominator are dumb and INCREDIBLY BORING.

I disagree that the engie example is pointless. Yes, I am taking a character who is from a team-based game, but the aspects of his play that I am talking about transcend the team aspect of the game.

Imagine it as a 1v1 arena. You get a gun, and the gun does most (but not all) of your shooting for you and is far more accurate than you could hope to be, but you must decide very carefully where to place that gun. You must anticipate your opponent's decisions and take the terrain and the goals of both players goals into account. On the flip side, you must wait for the gun to build, you have to support it, and your mobility is curtailed. Non-retarded engie players know and understand these things are all very different from conventional play and they know that these are all trade-offs so that the game is still fairly balanced and interactive. In all these regards, the engie is very different from the scout, soldier, heavy, etc. who are the more 'classic' FPS options.

@ Makaris: I already said a while back that Starcraft is what it is. I don't hate SC or think it's a poorly made game. It's worst offense to me is that an industry leader had a great opportunity to be bold and different and instead opted for the safe option. But no, that doesn't mean I think SC2 is a bad game (even if I did think that, I would have no right to such an opinion without having played it).

I just kind of let SC start this discussion because like I said, it was a missed opportunity that is a living reminder of how far we haven't gone (since the original SC was revolutionary but most RTSes have tried to ape that or WCIII since then). But there's nothing wrong with SC or SC2 in and of themselves.

@ both of you: I don't want a low skill ceiling at all . I want there to be different skill ceilings in the same same game. So players who are good at X can excel using X and players who are good at Y can excel using Y. There ARE multiple skill ceilings right now: macro vs. micro, but after 15 years, it's time to get some more skill ceilings or a different dynamic.
Logged

Makaris

  • Just chill'n
  • Tested
  • Karma: 7
  • Posts: 388
    • View Profile
Re: Starcraft II
« Reply #105 on: May 25, 2010, 01:44:18 PM »

Well, I think it might be an experience thing?  It's hard to point at StarCraft and stress that the different races really do play very, very different.  The fundamentals are the same, true.  It's small things who's emergent properties leads to large differences in play.  It takes a level of knowledge about the game/genre to recognize these differences, though.  Like, it might seem like a unit production structure is the same as any other unit producing structure, but in actual gameplay terms it has HUUUUGE effects.  Like, Zerg is free to tech switch at will, and fosters a play style that is hightly free form and adaptive, while Terrans under standard play styles are restricted to having a low mobility, extremely powerful infantry/mech ball that the opponent is forced to engage extremely carefully.  

But yes, most RTS' are pretty damn derivative.  Same with FPS's, Fighting Games and MMO's and pretty much every genre.  But thing is, Blizzard had options to make big changes, but decided (correctly) that StarCraft was already such an elegant product that it would be better to update the game conservatively rather than going balls to the walls.

RTS's have evolved pretty much like every genre; baby steps in different direction.  Sadly it seems that every step away from the fundamental RTS (StarCraft) is a step in the wrong direction.  I say 'seems' because I am sure there one day will be an RTS that does all sorts of wacky things and still retains it's core.  A Guilty Gear to StarCraft's Super Street Fighter Turbo.

Also, Mongrel, I expect to be playing Natural Selection 2 with you when it comes out.  It seems RIGHT up you alley!

Edit:
Yah know a wacky out-there RTS I should of remembered earlier?  SACRIFICE.  That game was fucking swanky as hell and really could of been the start of a new genre.  I... have no clue why it didn't pan out.  It was really great.

WEDGE FORMATION.  GUARD ME!
Logged

Kayin

  • Akzidenz Grotesk
  • Tested
  • Karma: 30
  • Posts: 1215
    • View Profile
    • I Wanna Be The Guy
Re: Starcraft II
« Reply #106 on: May 25, 2010, 01:56:14 PM »

I understand you a good bit clearer now. It still seems rather... naive reasoning to me though. No offense! Makaris and I are analytical dorks with nothing better to do but learn and understand this shit, so in the long run you're probably better off. :P

Anyways, there are already multiple paths to victory in starcraft. They all involve killing your opponent, but getting to that point can be done in a lot of different ways. I'm sure Mak will get into that more, like with his Idra example, but yeah. Now, adding fairly arbitrary win conditions (say, teching to NUCLEAR MISSILES that give you ATOMIC VICTORY) would probably be rather unhinged. The goal is separate from just fighting (it's like an eco victory) , so the opponent just turtles up forever, with no real chance of that decision backfiring on him, but it just seems silly and detracting from the central concepts of the game that give it so much strength.

To further illustrate, lets look at 1v1 Engie. Lets ignore arena capping, because that breaks the whole example immediately (engie loses). Thats pretty bad! Engie vs Scout? Scout has to basically play a non interactive guessing game with the engie. If he finds the engie before a level one is up, he wins. If the engie manages to get something up, he wins. Same goes with the Pyro, only the pyro has less of a chance to find the engie. Demo who is of high skill wins all the time, as does the soldier. Heavy probably flat out loses due to speed.  Medic is dumb in 1v1 so who cares, Sniper and Spy might be interesting but uh, thats it. The whole setup is a MESS. It's not balanced. The engie might not win for free, but he presents a degenerate game, even if it's not easy for him either.

Crazy game elements and win conditions either end up ineffectual or degenerate. Even in fighting games, where stuff liek grapplers aren't THAT far removed from stand play they typically represent the most 'broken' matches. 3-7 matchup? Grappler is probably involved.  7-3?  If it isn't the best character in the game, it's probably a grappler. This gets balanced out by the sheer amount of characters and the fact they aren't THAT crazy.

Now, I won't say some sort of alternative win condition or style isn't possible in an RTS -- thats a more reasonable possibility than a lot of other stuff, but it is an EXTREME CHALLENGE to make something that is interesting and balanced in that way without mucking up the game as a whole.  Having inconsistent game playing paradigms are risky business and for the life of me, I can't think of any games where it really works.... only like, half-examples (Magic?).

Also just one last note on being disappointed with SC2 being very basic.... I actually thought it was refreshing. Why? Because all these games DO try something different and they all fail in some way. Blizzard is  basically saying "No no, you guys are doing it wrong" while innovating their sequel in smart ways while maintaining the genre they perfected. I think if they tried something BOLD AND NEW I would actually be less interested, personally. Not that the way I see it is right, but there are many ways to interpret blizzard's move with SC2.

Edit: Mak beats me for once. Yeah, RTSs are weird because theres like, no successful alternative formula.  Comparing MW2 and TF2 is insane. Comparing SF2 and Guilty Gear is kinda insane! Some of these things could be more out of the box, but at least theres different design directions that work. RTSs have had no luck and it seems to be through no lack of trying. Every one seems to try and do at least one thing fundementally different but even those baby steps outright fail.
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Starcraft II
« Reply #107 on: May 25, 2010, 02:08:40 PM »

Don't get too caught up in the details of the engie example. Yeah 1v1 in TF2 is dumb if you look at all the TF2-specific details. Medic doesn't even work at all. The point is that engie is still a valid character to play in spite of having a playstyle that very nearly turns the FPS genre on it's head. Having a gun that shoots for you? What a retarded idea! Who would play an FPS with that?!

***

It's funny, I was actually going to cite your earlier grappler example and go on about how more "races" might improve things so that you could have more room for more off-the-wall strategies and let the averages smooth things out, but with all the variables, it seems that RTSes with lots of factions are pretty much impossible to balance and suffer from crippling balance issues.

Then again the only RTSes I know with more than 5 factions or so were all terrible games (LOL Age of Empires III) and suffered from a terribly biased or incompetent balance team ("Only rush strategies and units are really representative of true skill").
Logged

Makaris

  • Just chill'n
  • Tested
  • Karma: 7
  • Posts: 388
    • View Profile
Re: Starcraft II
« Reply #108 on: May 25, 2010, 02:14:24 PM »

Also just one last note on being disappointed with SC2 being very basic.... I actually thought it was refreshing. Why? Because all these games DO try something different and they all fail in some way. Blizzard is  basically saying "No no, you guys are doing it wrong" while innovating their sequel in smart ways while maintaining the genre they perfected. I think if they tried something BOLD AND NEW I would actually be less interested, personally. Not that the way I see it is right, but there are many ways to interpret blizzard's move with SC2.

Three quick examples of innovations in SC2 that are really neat even if they aren't huge sweeping changes to the fundamentals of the genre.

High Ground Vision:  In SC2, if you are on a lower level you cannot see up to higher levels unless you have some sort of spotter, usually in the form of one of your units that manage to get up there, or a flying unit.  This has a LOT of implications, too many to note here.

Cliff Jumping Units::  Two new units in the game, the Reaper and the Colossus, can effectively ignore cliffs, while not technically being flying units. This changes the way maps interact with the actual games tactics.  What would just be an innocuous choke point because an opportunity to evade and attack your opponents undefended mineral line.

Watch Towers:  The maps now have these structures that, if you have a ground unit touching them, grants you a huge area of vision.  These are of considerable strategic value and are a new thing to fight over in the game.

There are, of course, lots more.  Gold Minerals, new creep mechanics, FORCE FIELDS, new more understandable damage calculations, TONS of stuff.  But the game is still recognizably StarCraft, for better or worse.  I lot of people have judged the game as just being 3d SC1, when it is in fact a different game that hopefully will also stand the test of time, not usurping but instead alongside SC1.

DoW1 Dark Crusade had a lot of races, and other than one significant imbalance (Necrons), was pretty well balanced.  Soul Storm... no.
Logged

patito

  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: 14
  • Posts: 1181
    • View Profile
Re: Starcraft II
« Reply #109 on: May 25, 2010, 02:52:17 PM »

Anyways, there are already multiple paths to victory in starcraft. They all involve killing your opponent, but getting to that point can be done in a lot of different ways. I'm sure Mak will get into that more, like with his Idra example, but yeah. Now, adding fairly arbitrary win conditions (say, teching to NUCLEAR MISSILES that give you ATOMIC VICTORY) would probably be rather unhinged. The goal is separate from just fighting (it's like an eco victory) , so the opponent just turtles up forever, with no real chance of that decision backfiring on him, but it just seems silly and detracting from the central concepts of the game that give it so much strength.

I don't know how that game turned out, but Rise of Nations had alternate ways to victory. You could not quite achieve atomic victory, but you could get ATOMIC EVERYBODY LOSES. You could get some sort of economic victory and probably another one related to how much territory you controlled. I think Makaris did play it, any thoughts on that.
Logged

Makaris

  • Just chill'n
  • Tested
  • Karma: 7
  • Posts: 388
    • View Profile
Re: Starcraft II
« Reply #110 on: May 25, 2010, 02:57:25 PM »

Rise of Nations is the best macro RTS IMO.  It had alternate victory conditions, but they seemed to only turn up in greater than 1v1 situations, which I don't have much experience with.  1v1 tended to only rarely get to the end of the tech tree, which was when those sort of win conditions would pop up.

Rise of Nations also perfectly shows how minor changes can have huge emergent effects.  Each race was ALMOST the same as the other races, but had some differences that ended up being of considerable import.
Logged

Detonator

  • You made me come back for THIS?
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: 42
  • Posts: 3040
    • View Profile
Re: Starcraft II
« Reply #111 on: May 25, 2010, 03:29:07 PM »

I think, in the end, Mongrel just wants a game that isn't Starcraft.  That's OK, I'm not even sure if I love playing Starcraft myself (way too intense).  However, I understand that Starcraft is designed to be a raw 1v1 test of skill.  Wanting to change that would be like wanting Chess to be more like Settlers of Catan.  I love Settlers of Catan, but I'll never pretend the strategy runs as deep as Chess, and I'll never expect Chess to be something I can enjoy as lightly as Settlers.

I love TF2 and HoN/DotA because the different characters can feel like playing entirely different games.  However, I realize that's because they are team games, and the different characters fill different roles in that team.  In a 1v1 game, you must do everything yourself, so this sort of role-picking is pretty much impossible.
Logged
"Imagine punching somebody so hard that they turned into a door. Then you found out that's where ALL doors come from, and you got initiated into a murder club that makes doors. The stronger you punch, the better the door. So there are like super strong murderers who punch people into Venetian doors and shit"

Kayin

  • Akzidenz Grotesk
  • Tested
  • Karma: 30
  • Posts: 1215
    • View Profile
    • I Wanna Be The Guy
Re: Starcraft II
« Reply #112 on: May 25, 2010, 03:39:33 PM »

Det is far too rational for this discussion.
Logged

Frocto

  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: 76
  • Posts: 2628
    • View Profile
Re: Starcraft II
« Reply #113 on: May 25, 2010, 07:27:20 PM »

It is a little annoying being told repeatedly that I don't understand the argument when I highly doubt people are actually reading my posts!

Secondly, there is already usually the easiest race to micro in RTSs. You want more so?

No!

I never actually said I hate micro, I just said that it's nice when the developers include an option that lets you use it in a reduced capacity. So far this is a terrible argument since I posted saying I liked Zerg because they had less micro and then people went off on some insane tangent.

Anyway, you guys keeping asking me how I'd improve Starcraft 1 by reducing micro, so here's a few suggestions, potentially good and bad. Note that I do not think Templar should be automated, that was a response to Makaris asking with this crazy-eyed stare how anyone could possibly ever considering automating an AOE spell. In your mouth-frothing insanity, I guess you guys overlooked that I was presenting it as a possibility, not something I actually wanted to see in a game!

* Harvesters near the crystal/gas will automatically mine it.
* Selecting injured tanks/planes and right-clicking the HQ makes an SCV stop mining and go fix it, then go back to mining, basically like the Protoss Shield Generator, but you have to activate it.
* If one type of enemy is targeted and there is the same type of enemy within range with less health AND more MP, fire is focussed towards that enemy. I don't think people would accept this one, since it wouldn't let them stack like fags.
* Multiple buildings able to be selected at once, so Terrans can move their bases more easily.
* Scarabs and Fighters automatically built for Reavers and Carriers.
* Zerg automatically burrow, just like the Night Elves Hide ability in Warcraft 3.
* Bunkers can be "activated" to automatically slurp up nearby Terran soldiers.

There's just a few ideas off the top of my head. I had an idea about Wraiths and Ghosts automatically cloaking if they were about to die, but people might be deliberately trying to get their units killed for some crazy reason.
Logged
"And it is because they have fallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only about softer virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscular Christian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability."

Makaris

  • Just chill'n
  • Tested
  • Karma: 7
  • Posts: 388
    • View Profile
Re: Starcraft II
« Reply #114 on: May 25, 2010, 08:32:54 PM »

Basically almost all of those suggestions are terrible.  D:

Edit for elaboration:  There is a limit to how much you should automate (in StarCraft, in HypotheticalRTS you can do whatever you want).  When you automate things like target selection, you remove player input and ways to compare skill.

Take DoW2 for example.  DoW2 had a retreat feature where you could click this button and your units would retreat from the battle... and you get a boost in speed.  It KILLED several types of unit interaction and is one of the bigger reasons DoW2 isn't taken seriously.  When you remove player control, you are dumbing-down-the-game.  There is very little ways to get around this, it's simply a fact.

In regards to some of the specific things mentioned...
-Auto-burrowing would be terrible. Just awful.  Really I... I would hate that, absolutely.
-Auto-bunkering too would be annoying as hell.  I can imagine lots of situations where you units get out of position because the AI goes 'oh no, let ME handle this :D'  And if it was an option you could turn on or off, it wouldn't be much better than just highlighting a few marines and clicking the bunker.
-You can control multiple buildings in SC2, so that's good.
-Auto building scarabs and fighters too would be bad.  It lets the player decide whether they want to spend the resources or not; player input.  As an option it's not bad... In fact it's in SC2 :D
-SC2 has improved automining, so that's good.
-Auto-target select would be bad.  Being able to manage a pitched battle and focus firing the weakest enemy is a HUUUUGE part of micro.
-That repair idea is... meh?  It's not much simpler than just clicking an SCV and then clicking the mech unit.  And SC2 has the ability to 'turn on' auto repairing with your SCV's, so you can send a few as an escort for your Thor or what have you.

I think that mention of the Wraith/Ghost is a perfect microcosm of this situation.  When you take control away from the player, you are taking away his tools to out preform the enemy and win in a manner that isn't just 'my build countered your build.'

Edit 2:  I just mentioned to Kayin how much I love the new unit production mechanism.  Rather than Select Larva > Hit X Hotkey and automatically all the larva become the selected unit.  Now, I go 4 (my control group for my Hatcheries), S (to select all available larva), ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.  It's VISCERAL.
Logged

Kayin

  • Akzidenz Grotesk
  • Tested
  • Karma: 30
  • Posts: 1215
    • View Profile
    • I Wanna Be The Guy
Re: Starcraft II
« Reply #115 on: May 25, 2010, 09:03:49 PM »

The Scarab and Carrier example could function like auto-repair on SCVs, but really thats part of the intentional flavor of the unit. I sorta remember reading that Carriers can autocast build interceptor. Blizzard seems to have already caught most of the obvious stuff that doesn't really harm the game much.

The rest of the ideas seemed to be either bizarre interface preference, or bad (Burrow and focus firing weaker enemies).
Logged

Makaris

  • Just chill'n
  • Tested
  • Karma: 7
  • Posts: 388
    • View Profile
Re: Starcraft II
« Reply #116 on: May 25, 2010, 09:07:59 PM »

You were a Reaver dropper, weren't you Kayin?  That's cheap, ya know?
Logged

Kayin

  • Akzidenz Grotesk
  • Tested
  • Karma: 30
  • Posts: 1215
    • View Profile
    • I Wanna Be The Guy
Re: Starcraft II
« Reply #117 on: May 25, 2010, 09:09:44 PM »

Fuck  you, I'll drop Reavers all day long. AND I WILL ENJOY BUILDING MOAR SCARABS
Logged

Frocto

  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: 76
  • Posts: 2628
    • View Profile
Re: Starcraft II
« Reply #118 on: May 25, 2010, 10:33:22 PM »

makaris, did you not like night elves
Logged
"And it is because they have fallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only about softer virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscular Christian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability."

Kayin

  • Akzidenz Grotesk
  • Tested
  • Karma: 30
  • Posts: 1215
    • View Profile
    • I Wanna Be The Guy
Re: Starcraft II
« Reply #119 on: May 25, 2010, 11:15:07 PM »

Cloak and burrow are not the same thing. Burrow comes with an activation time and are helpless for a period if spotted by a detector. So either you make burrow flat out better (probably not a great idea considering how balanced the game is) or you deal with the units taking a second to actually get up out of the ground every time you want to move them.

edit: less annoyingly though, SC2 can have units autocast UNBURROW as to properly ambush enemies without intervention. Not sure how necessary that is, but hey!
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 22