Watching the high-res gameplay video in fullscreen is so gorram nice. It looks sooo sexeh, the youtube and other videos didn't do sc2 gameplay much justice.
The video compression on the gameplay video looks like barf. Am I doing something wrong (DivX 6.6 installed, WMP10, the file is 450 or so megabytes from ausgamers)?
<!--quoteo(post=1628368:date=May 21 2007, 05:53 PM:name=Zor2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zor2 @ May 21 2007, 05:53 PM) [snapback]1628368[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The question basically becomes, so why bother with micromanagement? Who needs it anyway? Make life easier for everone! Well, micro-ing your units is an inherent part of Starcraft. It is a crucial element of the game which is "easy to learn but difficult to master" and this nature is why Starcraft is still going strong today in places like Korea. With less micro, the focus is on macro (overall strategy, economy, build orders etc.) which obviously requires skill too. However, part of the genius of Starcraft 1 is that is balances this micro and macro (~50-50) and the optimisation of this balance is another skill in itself.
This is why innovations such as 'autocast' and 'auto-formations' are generally frowned upon by the hardcore community as these remove small but significant areas of subtleties in the game where skill is required. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, I can kinda see your point about autocast, but what about other innovations such as "telling a group of casters to cast a status effect on a single target results in ONE copy of the spell being cast, instead of 15"? Or what about tabbed-unit-grouping for commanding multiple non-identical units? It was damned annoying trying to manage more than 2 or 3 casters at a time in Starcraft 1.
<!--quoteo(post=1628351:date=May 21 2007, 05:28 PM:name=Gree)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Gree @ May 21 2007, 05:28 PM) [snapback]1628351[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Am I the only one who noticed, from the game play videos, that units cannot fire on the move? I guess they did this so that melee units would stand a chance, but then who would expect a flying battle cruiser to be capable of something as complex as being able to fire a weapon on the move. Sure there are better things to do with CPU cycles, like realtime dynamic lighting, but some ballistic physics for the siege tanks would have been nice to see. Oh well, I guess the guys at Blizzard decided to go the easy way of balancing a rock paper scissors game, and not one where realtime physics calculations determine hits and misses.
Since this is only a preview of the game, I can't make a decent analysis; but, from the videos, it appears as though it is just a prettier Starcraft with a few new units leaving me wholly unimpressed that they have done nothing truly new. Starcraft 2 looks to be just another clickfest like Warcraft 3. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Units can almost fire on the move. Move command, attack command, immediately issue another move command after they fire. It takes some effort, but well, that's the point.
Random physics calculations would be horrible to gameplay.
If SC and WC3 were just "clickfests", I don't think they would be quite as popular.
If you didn't like the original Starcraft, it's unlikely you'll like SC2. Fortunately for Blizzard there's a somewhat large group of people who do like SC.
(preach)-Realism doesn't always make for good gameplay. New features don't always make for good gameplay. Lack of new, innovative features isn't necessarily a bad thing. Slightly on topic, despite adding practically nothing new to the genre, I think that Zelda:TP is the best in the series(followed by Majora's Mask which is an almost great example of innovation done right. pity it was too hard/complicated/irritating/bad beginning/etc host of problems that made a lot of people give up). Maybe that will help you see where I'm coming from.
douchebagatronCustom member titleJoin Date: 2003-12-20Member: 24581Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
after watching the high res video i noticed some quite awesome things in it. like the way the mothership loses and regains its shield after the planet cracker, the way the buildings warp in, and most awesomely, the way reapers die(randomly spinning off in crazy directions)
<!--quoteo(post=1628378:date=May 21 2007, 06:58 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ May 21 2007, 06:58 PM) [snapback]1628378[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Ok, I can kinda see your point about autocast, but what about other innovations such as "telling a group of casters to cast a status effect on a single target results in ONE copy of the spell being cast, instead of 15"? Or what about tabbed-unit-grouping for commanding multiple non-identical units? It was damned annoying trying to manage more than 2 or 3 casters at a time in Starcraft 1. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know what you mean and I'm not completely with the conservative "hardcore" community as I'm hardly a hardcore player myself. We probably agree that theres a fine line between features which are convenient and necessary to ensure fun gameplay and features which substitute skill in favour of automatic actions in the actual game.
As for making group casters only fire one copy of a spell, I'm not sure which side of the line I fall on. For <i>Starcraft</i> it's probably right that you should select each unit individually. This is because if you compare Starcraft to <i>Warcraft III</i>, Warcraft is a lot more spell/ability intensive, so the need for a convenience feature is arguably much greater.
From what I have read, and I don't mean this patronisingly, Starcraft II is going to keep in line with Starcraft I in terms of gameplay. So there should be a much less of a need to cast spells left-right-centre. If this is the case, then maybe individual unit selection should be kept. It really is amazing to see the pros coordinate 2-3 attacks on different fronts, whilst micro-ing their particular units individually.
As for tabbed unit grouping, I thats less controversial and I think I would welcome that. From what I understand, it wouldn't be that much different from the existing "double-click on a unit to select all units of that type".
<!--quoteo(post=1628404:date=May 21 2007, 09:49 PM:name=Aldaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Aldaris @ May 21 2007, 09:49 PM) [snapback]1628404[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Anyone notice the different death animations of the Marines depending on what killed them? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice! I noticed there were different deaths but didnt realise it was due to the source of the damage. I think the Immortals (and I guess eventually every unit) also have different death animations.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
The game should move the skill towards decision making and away from clicking quickly. If it doesn't move in this direction, I probably won't play it much. WC3 was a huge improvement over starcraft in this respect.
I reinstalled WC3 on Sunday and I've been playing a few custom games against a computer of normal difficulty and surprisingly the AI is winning more games than I am. I remember being able to trounce him a few years ago, it's amazing how rusty you get.
The single-unit select and use to cast spells etc in Starcraft does get somewhat silly. An examply is ghosts, which people use very seldom for abilites such as lockdown, even though on paper it'd be an absolutely awesome way to shut down most high tech terran and protoss attacks. So there definately is a rather large gray area when it comes to maintaining the skill curve contra making parts of the game accessible in some way, even to most very skilled players (see the ghost example). It's hard to argue against it giving depth, the question is if that depth is worth restricting several aspects of the game from play for the vast majority.
Now that you mentioned 'lockdown', I just HAVE to post this video of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRtguqz3qCc" target="_blank">Boxer locking down a bunch of battlecruisers</a>. Boxer at least used to be the best Terran player. Boxer lost three Ghosts, and his opponent lost seven battlecruisers...
<!--quoteo(post=1628448:date=May 22 2007, 02:04 PM:name=Retales)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Retales @ May 22 2007, 02:04 PM) [snapback]1628448[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Now that you mentioned 'lockdown', I just HAVE to post this video of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRtguqz3qCc" target="_blank">Boxer locking down a bunch of battlecruisers</a>. Boxer at least used to be the best Terran player. Boxer lost three Ghosts, and his opponent lost seven battlecruisers...
The main thing in that demo that startles me is the final battle. The mothership is said to be the most powerful thing your enemy will go for first. It's clearly taken a beating, smoking etc. yet on the final battle it appears as if nothing attacks it? =/
<!--quoteo(post=1628453:date=May 22 2007, 09:21 AM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thaldarin @ May 22 2007, 09:21 AM) [snapback]1628453[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I want to see more Zerg.
The main thing in that demo that startles me is the final battle. The mothership is said to be the most powerful thing your enemy will go for first. It's clearly taken a beating, smoking etc. yet on the final battle it appears as if nothing attacks it? =/ <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That battle was setup to look cool, nothing else. A real battle would never play out like that. Watch where the different units are firing. Not only are they firing at random targets, they alternate between targets. There is no focus fire.
Don't look at that for what you'd expect from the finished product, just enjoy the shiny.
Well, I'm not thrilled about Starcraft 2. I liked Starcraft, but not for the gameplay. I barely tolerated the gameplay because I enjoyed the setting and flair so much. I would have loved to see a Starcraft MMO (preferrably MMOFPS) because I might have played that. But I'm not an RTS gamer, so RTS games don't interest me.
This is a post. It is not a "###### all over a good thing"-post. It's an opinion post. You've seen them before and you will see them again, and if you can't handle such a post, then you're in the wrong forum, not me.
<!--quoteo(post=1628474:date=May 22 2007, 09:20 AM:name=OrganoX)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(OrganoX @ May 22 2007, 09:20 AM) [snapback]1628474[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Special Unit (Mothership for example) = Starcraft Hero Unit? The unit doesn't gain experience what so ever, at least not what we have seen. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think its safe to say Hero units are not going to be implemented outside of the single player campaign. An excellent move imo as I didn't really like the Hero implementation in WC3.
Boxer video is classic :] theres more at www.boxerforever.com
<!--quoteo(post=1628404:date=May 22 2007, 04:49 AM:name=Aldaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Aldaris @ May 22 2007, 04:49 AM) [snapback]1628404[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Anyone notice the different death animations of the Marines depending on what killed them? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh yes. I first thought they simply fell over by the youtube videos, which was ###### as they explode in guts in SC1. This new thing is certainly interesting.
To damn many people complain about the similarity of warhammer and SC2. Jetpacks! they had that in DoW! *gasp*.
<!--quoteo(post=1628445:date=May 22 2007, 12:38 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ May 22 2007, 12:38 PM) [snapback]1628445[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The game should move the skill towards decision making and away from clicking quickly. If it doesn't move in this direction, I probably won't play it much. WC3 was a huge improvement over starcraft in this respect.
I reinstalled WC3 on Sunday and I've been playing a few custom games against a computer of normal difficulty and surprisingly the AI is winning more games than I am. I remember being able to trounce him a few years ago, it's amazing how rusty you get. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i thought that too, but i just checked a competitive replay and it's pretty impressive what some of thses guys can do with their micro. i cant micro myself in any game- i cant conentrate on more than a couple of things at once- but if you can it does seem to add a large amount of depth.
i prefer SC's gameplay to WC3's as I found WC3s to be little more than cycling through the different types of units, firing off your best special attack as soon as it became available.
(plus i dislike the fantasy setting. plus SC has totally different teams where as WC3's are pretty much the same)
and hey if it wasn't for SC i'd doubt NS would have skulks and oni as they are now ;]
I liked how WC3 made micro easier than SC, but yea, the heroes were boring. Watching WC3 games is a bore because half the time they are killing AI creeps, not the constant pressure of SC. So yea, remove the heroes and all will be fine. Another thing I liked about WC3 is that you don't need to click 40 workers. You just need maybe 10 foods worth and you're set. I really do they are lenient on micro. I'm not the best at that and I'm sure it alienates a lot of people too.
<!--quoteo(post=1628368:date=May 21 2007, 05:53 PM:name=Zor2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zor2 @ May 21 2007, 05:53 PM) [snapback]1628368[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> One of the main reasons why units do not fire and move in Starcraft is that it severely reduces micro-management. An easy example is when Large Dragoon Army A is firing at close quarters to a retreating Small Dragoon Army B.
If firing and moving was implemented, B would just click to run in a random direction and his units would auto fire as they ran. Similarly, A would just click in the general direction of the retreating army B and his units would auto fire. Not much micro skill involved.
Compare this to the current situation where B can maximise his damage against A whilst at the same time retreating by carefully moving his dragoons during the cooldown time of the firing. Correspondingly, A can also move his units closer to B during the cooldown to maximise <i>his</i> damage against B whilst maintaining proximity to B (so B does not get out of range)
Its ###### to describe, but I will find a Youtube video of some of this micromanagement which I am talking about...
The question basically becomes, so why bother with micromanagement? Who needs it anyway? Make life easier for everone! Well, micro-ing your units is an inherent part of Starcraft. It is a crucial element of the game which is "easy to learn but difficult to master" and this nature is why Starcraft is still going strong today in places like Korea. With less micro, the focus is on macro (overall strategy, economy, build orders etc.) which obviously requires skill too. However, part of the genius of Starcraft 1 is that is balances this micro and macro (~50-50) and the optimisation of this balance is another skill in itself.
This is why innovations such as 'autocast' and 'auto-formations' are generally frowned upon by the hardcore community as these remove small but significant areas of subtleties in the game where skill is required. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> As a massive TA fan I can assure you that it doesn't "decrease micro skill involved". Yes, it probably would if they allowed every unit to fire while moving, and just kind of left it at that, but having units with different firing directionality capabilities and different firing abilities (some can fire while moving, some can't) adds alot of variability to micromanagement. Auto cast and auto formations are a different discussion entirely. I think it's stupid, how much fiddly crap is the player supposed to do manually? It doesn't decrease the skill needed to set up a formation for ideal efficiently with auto formation, it just decreases the micromanagement time required. Micromanagement time can always potentially be used elsewhere, there's no need to look for unnecessary excuses to make micromanagement harder then it has to be. Auto cast is probably just a bad idea... AI's aren't smart enough to intelligently choose targets to fire at on the level of a human player. Autocast would just create a duality in the community, those who use it because it's easy, and those who don't because it's not efficient enough. Sort of like a manual/automatic transmission argument. You don't want to harbor that kind of thing in your gaming community unless there isn't an alternative.
Formation would be something new in Starcraft. In the original, the units were way too clunky for any sort of formation more complex than "Firebats in front, Ghosts behind" unless you were a demigod. So, there won't be a "traditionalist" argument against formations beyond the argument for maintaining high levels of micromanagement in general. The argument for micromanagement is that honing the furious point-click skills as seen in Korean and international tournaments is one of the core principles of the game: those reflexes allow commanders to make their armies more effective and do more things at once. Like a natural-selection marine perfecting his aim so he can get rid of skulks faster to focus on other things, nobody really wants to remove the point-click skill involved.
I'd also prefer a game low on the micromanagement and heavier on the strategy, but that's not what Starcraft is. Regardless, I've been drawn in by the story and, well, the fun.
<!--quoteo(post=1628631:date=May 22 2007, 11:54 PM:name=semipsychotic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(semipsychotic @ May 22 2007, 11:54 PM) [snapback]1628631[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Formation would be something new in Starcraft. In the original, the units were way too clunky for any sort of formation more complex than "Firebats in front, Ghosts behind" unless you were a demigod. So, there won't be a "traditionalist" argument against formations beyond the argument for maintaining high levels of micromanagement in general. The argument for micromanagement is that honing the furious point-click skills as seen in Korean and international tournaments is one of the core principles of the game: those reflexes allow commanders to make their armies more effective and do more things at once. Like a natural-selection marine perfecting his aim so he can get rid of skulks faster to focus on other things, nobody really wants to remove the point-click skill involved.
I'd also prefer a game low on the micromanagement and heavier on the strategy, but that's not what Starcraft is. Regardless, I've been drawn in by the story and, well, the fun. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Trust me, that doesn't go away when you add auto formations. The capacity for doing massive amounts of work simultaneously by incredibly skilled players doesn't decrease in usefulness as the game includes more avenues of unit control, it simply allows more time to be devoted elsewhere.
High end TA players don't really compete in devotion compared to high end starcraft players, but watching them play you can see they are running up the same wall as every other RTS pro is, the lack of an ability to micromanage everything all at once. TA includes many automation entities in terms of formation and unit movement control. You have queues of everything set up so you can keep things running while doing something else on the map. But ultimately it doesn't make the micromanagement of the game any dumber. Then again, TA is a much larger game in scale then starcraft ever was. It's not unusual to have hundreds of TA units flying back and forth simultaneously on several fronts.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd also prefer a game low on the micromanagement and heavier on the strategy, but that's not what Starcraft is. Regardless, I've been drawn in by the story and, well, the fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wooo... I'm also not a fan of whoever can "fiddle" the best.
That's when I got into magic...
Chess and board games were getting dull, but this card game plays different each game.
I never played SC seriously; I just loved making my own maps.
These RTS games are so beyond me. You guys link these videos and all I see is a wad of mobs rushing at a wad of other mobs and one set of mobs wins and it's apparently really cool/impressive.
my strat in RTS games is like my strat in Civilization games. Minimal military, farm an awesome economy until I've got all the upgraedz, then churn out enough units to smash the enemy. Completely useless vs. hard mode AI or 99% of human players.
<!--quoteo(post=1628606:date=May 22 2007, 08:30 PM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ May 22 2007, 08:30 PM) [snapback]1628606[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> [...] Another thing I liked about WC3 is that you don't need to click 40 workers. You just need maybe 10 foods worth and you're set. I really do they are lenient on micro. I'm not the best at that and I'm sure it alienates a lot of people too. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But in Starcraft the workers play a whole different role than in Warcraft 3. In WC3 your base/expansion reaches it's maximum gold production as soon as you have 5 workers mining gold. In SC you should build like 2,5 workers / mineral block (which of course takes time and resources itself). So the key to victory might lie in crippling your opponents enemy by killing the builders (with a drop of lurkers, templars & psi storm or siege tanks). But if you kill all the builders in WC3, it takes about a minute to restore production to its maximum.
Yeah, WC3 and Starcraft are different games. I'm just saying I like Starcraft & tons of builders more <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1628872:date=May 24 2007, 01:59 AM:name=Retales)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Retales @ May 24 2007, 01:59 AM) [snapback]1628872[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> But in Starcraft the workers play a whole different role than in Warcraft 3. In WC3 your base/expansion reaches it's maximum gold production as soon as you have 5 workers mining gold. In SC you should build like 2,5 workers / mineral block (which of course takes time and resources itself). So the key to victory might lie in crippling your opponents enemy by killing the builders (with a drop of lurkers, templars & psi storm or siege tanks). But if you kill all the builders in WC3, it takes about a minute to restore production to its maximum.
Yeah, WC3 and Starcraft are different games. I'm just saying I like Starcraft & tons of builders more <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So true. At first I thought they were basically the same, one with heroes, a 4th race and a fantasy setting. But I think you probably point out the biggest difference between the games. Economics in Starcraft requires much more time, which imo is much better. Games where your resources flow easily and sustainably lack a huge amount of depth compared to ones where they dont.
<!--quoteo(post=1628761:date=May 23 2007, 02:05 PM:name=DiscoZombie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DiscoZombie @ May 23 2007, 02:05 PM) [snapback]1628761[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> These RTS games are so beyond me. You guys link these videos and all I see is a wad of mobs rushing at a wad of other mobs and one set of mobs wins and it's apparently really cool/impressive.
my strat in RTS games is like my strat in Civilization games. Minimal military, farm an awesome economy until I've got all the upgraedz, then churn out enough units to smash the enemy. Completely useless vs. hard mode AI or 99% of human players. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> For your own good, don't post in this thread any more <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
You're practically saying that all you hear coming out of the orchestra is a bunch of sound to a room full of music enthusiasts. I can respect that you don't personally like RTS games, but your rationalizations are pretty close to blasphemous against all gamers.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So true. At first I thought they were basically the same, one with heroes, a 4th race and a fantasy setting. But I think you probably point out the biggest difference between the games. Economics in Starcraft requires much more time, which imo is much better. Games where your resources flow easily and sustainably lack a huge amount of depth compared to ones where they dont.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not even that Starcraft requires more time. It's just the golden rule of booming--know the hotkeys to select your main economic building (or assign one) and to build a resource gatherer, and make sure your building is never idle until your returns diminish. That doesn't require too much effort or even much time once you get used to it. The big point is that it requires a significant <i>investment</i> and stresses just one building and one unit type in each race, emphasizing early-game raids and resource control that can stunt an enemy for the rest of the game. One neat feature in many RTS games is the set of graphs presented after every match where you can trace unit production, economic growth, and resource stockpiles through the game. It's very satisfying to see the enemy resource graph shudder, bend, and never fully recover when you sent those light raiders early in the game. Or, more immediately, it bites to look up and see your minerals sitting at 23, gas at 352, and your unit queues empty, knowing that the enemy amasses at the edge of that shadowy veil.
Comments
The question basically becomes, so why bother with micromanagement? Who needs it anyway? Make life easier for everone! Well, micro-ing your units is an inherent part of Starcraft. It is a crucial element of the game which is "easy to learn but difficult to master" and this nature is why Starcraft is still going strong today in places like Korea. With less micro, the focus is on macro (overall strategy, economy, build orders etc.) which obviously requires skill too. However, part of the genius of Starcraft 1 is that is balances this micro and macro (~50-50) and the optimisation of this balance is another skill in itself.
This is why innovations such as 'autocast' and 'auto-formations' are generally frowned upon by the hardcore community as these remove small but significant areas of subtleties in the game where skill is required.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, I can kinda see your point about autocast, but what about other innovations such as "telling a group of casters to cast a status effect on a single target results in ONE copy of the spell being cast, instead of 15"? Or what about tabbed-unit-grouping for commanding multiple non-identical units? It was damned annoying trying to manage more than 2 or 3 casters at a time in Starcraft 1.
Am I the only one who noticed, from the game play videos, that units cannot fire on the move? I guess they did this so that melee units would stand a chance, but then who would expect a flying battle cruiser to be capable of something as complex as being able to fire a weapon on the move. Sure there are better things to do with CPU cycles, like realtime dynamic lighting, but some ballistic physics for the siege tanks would have been nice to see. Oh well, I guess the guys at Blizzard decided to go the easy way of balancing a rock paper scissors game, and not one where realtime physics calculations determine hits and misses.
Since this is only a preview of the game, I can't make a decent analysis; but, from the videos, it appears as though it is just a prettier Starcraft with a few new units leaving me wholly unimpressed that they have done nothing truly new. Starcraft 2 looks to be just another clickfest like Warcraft 3.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Units can almost fire on the move. Move command, attack command, immediately issue another move command after they fire. It takes some effort, but well, that's the point.
Random physics calculations would be horrible to gameplay.
If SC and WC3 were just "clickfests", I don't think they would be quite as popular.
If you didn't like the original Starcraft, it's unlikely you'll like SC2. Fortunately for Blizzard there's a somewhat large group of people who do like SC.
(preach)-Realism doesn't always make for good gameplay.
New features don't always make for good gameplay.
Lack of new, innovative features isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Slightly on topic, despite adding practically nothing new to the genre, I think that Zelda:TP is the best in the series(followed by Majora's Mask which is an almost great example of innovation done right. pity it was too hard/complicated/irritating/bad beginning/etc host of problems that made a lot of people give up). Maybe that will help you see where I'm coming from.
Ok, I can kinda see your point about autocast, but what about other innovations such as "telling a group of casters to cast a status effect on a single target results in ONE copy of the spell being cast, instead of 15"? Or what about tabbed-unit-grouping for commanding multiple non-identical units? It was damned annoying trying to manage more than 2 or 3 casters at a time in Starcraft 1.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know what you mean and I'm not completely with the conservative "hardcore" community as I'm hardly a hardcore player myself. We probably agree that theres a fine line between features which are convenient and necessary to ensure fun gameplay and features which substitute skill in favour of automatic actions in the actual game.
As for making group casters only fire one copy of a spell, I'm not sure which side of the line I fall on. For <i>Starcraft</i> it's probably right that you should select each unit individually. This is because if you compare Starcraft to <i>Warcraft III</i>, Warcraft is a lot more spell/ability intensive, so the need for a convenience feature is arguably much greater.
From what I have read, and I don't mean this patronisingly, Starcraft II is going to keep in line with Starcraft I in terms of gameplay. So there should be a much less of a need to cast spells left-right-centre. If this is the case, then maybe individual unit selection should be kept. It really is amazing to see the pros coordinate 2-3 attacks on different fronts, whilst micro-ing their particular units individually.
As for tabbed unit grouping, I thats less controversial and I think I would welcome that. From what I understand, it wouldn't be that much different from the existing "double-click on a unit to select all units of that type".
<!--quoteo(post=1628404:date=May 21 2007, 09:49 PM:name=Aldaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Aldaris @ May 21 2007, 09:49 PM) [snapback]1628404[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Anyone notice the different death animations of the Marines depending on what killed them?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice! I noticed there were different deaths but didnt realise it was due to the source of the damage. I think the Immortals (and I guess eventually every unit) also have different death animations.
I reinstalled WC3 on Sunday and I've been playing a few custom games against a computer of normal difficulty and surprisingly the AI is winning more games than I am. I remember being able to trounce him a few years ago, it's amazing how rusty you get.
... Skill <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Now that you mentioned 'lockdown', I just HAVE to post this video of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRtguqz3qCc" target="_blank">Boxer locking down a bunch of battlecruisers</a>. Boxer at least used to be the best Terran player. Boxer lost three Ghosts, and his opponent lost seven battlecruisers...
... Skill <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...Skill <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
Micro
!!!
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
The main thing in that demo that startles me is the final battle. The mothership is said to be the most powerful thing your enemy will go for first. It's clearly taken a beating, smoking etc. yet on the final battle it appears as if nothing attacks it? =/
I want to see more Zerg.
The main thing in that demo that startles me is the final battle. The mothership is said to be the most powerful thing your enemy will go for first. It's clearly taken a beating, smoking etc. yet on the final battle it appears as if nothing attacks it? =/
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That battle was setup to look cool, nothing else. A real battle would never play out like that. Watch where the different units are firing. Not only are they firing at random targets, they alternate between targets. There is no focus fire.
Don't look at that for what you'd expect from the finished product, just enjoy the shiny.
This is a post. It is not a "###### all over a good thing"-post. It's an opinion post. You've seen them before and you will see them again, and if you can't handle such a post, then you're in the wrong forum, not me.
The unit doesn't gain experience what so ever, at least not what we have seen.
Special Unit (Mothership for example) = Starcraft Hero Unit?
The unit doesn't gain experience what so ever, at least not what we have seen.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think its safe to say Hero units are not going to be implemented outside of the single player campaign. An excellent move imo as I didn't really like the Hero implementation in WC3.
Boxer video is classic :] theres more at www.boxerforever.com
Anyone notice the different death animations of the Marines depending on what killed them?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh yes. I first thought they simply fell over by the youtube videos, which was ###### as they explode in guts in SC1. This new thing is certainly interesting.
To damn many people complain about the similarity of warhammer and SC2. Jetpacks! they had that in DoW! *gasp*.
The game should move the skill towards decision making and away from clicking quickly. If it doesn't move in this direction, I probably won't play it much. WC3 was a huge improvement over starcraft in this respect.
I reinstalled WC3 on Sunday and I've been playing a few custom games against a computer of normal difficulty and surprisingly the AI is winning more games than I am. I remember being able to trounce him a few years ago, it's amazing how rusty you get.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i thought that too, but i just checked a competitive replay and it's pretty impressive what some of thses guys can do with their micro. i cant micro myself in any game- i cant conentrate on more than a couple of things at once- but if you can it does seem to add a large amount of depth.
i prefer SC's gameplay to WC3's as I found WC3s to be little more than cycling through the different types of units, firing off your best special attack as soon as it became available.
(plus i dislike the fantasy setting. plus SC has totally different teams where as WC3's are pretty much the same)
and hey if it wasn't for SC i'd doubt NS would have skulks and oni as they are now ;]
One of the main reasons why units do not fire and move in Starcraft is that it severely reduces micro-management. An easy example is when Large Dragoon Army A is firing at close quarters to a retreating Small Dragoon Army B.
If firing and moving was implemented, B would just click to run in a random direction and his units would auto fire as they ran. Similarly, A would just click in the general direction of the retreating army B and his units would auto fire. Not much micro skill involved.
Compare this to the current situation where B can maximise his damage against A whilst at the same time retreating by carefully moving his dragoons during the cooldown time of the firing. Correspondingly, A can also move his units closer to B during the cooldown to maximise <i>his</i> damage against B whilst maintaining proximity to B (so B does not get out of range)
Its ###### to describe, but I will find a Youtube video of some of this micromanagement which I am talking about...
The question basically becomes, so why bother with micromanagement? Who needs it anyway? Make life easier for everone! Well, micro-ing your units is an inherent part of Starcraft. It is a crucial element of the game which is "easy to learn but difficult to master" and this nature is why Starcraft is still going strong today in places like Korea. With less micro, the focus is on macro (overall strategy, economy, build orders etc.) which obviously requires skill too. However, part of the genius of Starcraft 1 is that is balances this micro and macro (~50-50) and the optimisation of this balance is another skill in itself.
This is why innovations such as 'autocast' and 'auto-formations' are generally frowned upon by the hardcore community as these remove small but significant areas of subtleties in the game where skill is required.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As a massive TA fan I can assure you that it doesn't "decrease micro skill involved". Yes, it probably would if they allowed every unit to fire while moving, and just kind of left it at that, but having units with different firing directionality capabilities and different firing abilities (some can fire while moving, some can't) adds alot of variability to micromanagement. Auto cast and auto formations are a different discussion entirely. I think it's stupid, how much fiddly crap is the player supposed to do manually? It doesn't decrease the skill needed to set up a formation for ideal efficiently with auto formation, it just decreases the micromanagement time required. Micromanagement time can always potentially be used elsewhere, there's no need to look for unnecessary excuses to make micromanagement harder then it has to be. Auto cast is probably just a bad idea... AI's aren't smart enough to intelligently choose targets to fire at on the level of a human player. Autocast would just create a duality in the community, those who use it because it's easy, and those who don't because it's not efficient enough. Sort of like a manual/automatic transmission argument. You don't want to harbor that kind of thing in your gaming community unless there isn't an alternative.
I'd also prefer a game low on the micromanagement and heavier on the strategy, but that's not what Starcraft is. Regardless, I've been drawn in by the story and, well, the fun.
Formation would be something new in Starcraft. In the original, the units were way too clunky for any sort of formation more complex than "Firebats in front, Ghosts behind" unless you were a demigod. So, there won't be a "traditionalist" argument against formations beyond the argument for maintaining high levels of micromanagement in general. The argument for micromanagement is that honing the furious point-click skills as seen in Korean and international tournaments is one of the core principles of the game: those reflexes allow commanders to make their armies more effective and do more things at once. Like a natural-selection marine perfecting his aim so he can get rid of skulks faster to focus on other things, nobody really wants to remove the point-click skill involved.
I'd also prefer a game low on the micromanagement and heavier on the strategy, but that's not what Starcraft is. Regardless, I've been drawn in by the story and, well, the fun.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Trust me, that doesn't go away when you add auto formations. The capacity for doing massive amounts of work simultaneously by incredibly skilled players doesn't decrease in usefulness as the game includes more avenues of unit control, it simply allows more time to be devoted elsewhere.
High end TA players don't really compete in devotion compared to high end starcraft players, but watching them play you can see they are running up the same wall as every other RTS pro is, the lack of an ability to micromanage everything all at once. TA includes many automation entities in terms of formation and unit movement control. You have queues of everything set up so you can keep things running while doing something else on the map. But ultimately it doesn't make the micromanagement of the game any dumber. Then again, TA is a much larger game in scale then starcraft ever was. It's not unusual to have hundreds of TA units flying back and forth simultaneously on several fronts.
That's when I got into magic...
Chess and board games were getting dull, but this card game plays different each game.
I never played SC seriously; I just loved making my own maps.
my strat in RTS games is like my strat in Civilization games. Minimal military, farm an awesome economy until I've got all the upgraedz, then churn out enough units to smash the enemy. Completely useless vs. hard mode AI or 99% of human players.
[...]
Another thing I liked about WC3 is that you don't need to click 40 workers. You just need maybe 10 foods worth and you're set. I really do they are lenient on micro. I'm not the best at that and I'm sure it alienates a lot of people too.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But in Starcraft the workers play a whole different role than in Warcraft 3. In WC3 your base/expansion reaches it's maximum gold production as soon as you have 5 workers mining gold. In SC you should build like 2,5 workers / mineral block (which of course takes time and resources itself). So the key to victory might lie in crippling your opponents enemy by killing the builders (with a drop of lurkers, templars & psi storm or siege tanks). But if you kill all the builders in WC3, it takes about a minute to restore production to its maximum.
Yeah, WC3 and Starcraft are different games. I'm just saying I like Starcraft & tons of builders more <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
But in Starcraft the workers play a whole different role than in Warcraft 3. In WC3 your base/expansion reaches it's maximum gold production as soon as you have 5 workers mining gold. In SC you should build like 2,5 workers / mineral block (which of course takes time and resources itself). So the key to victory might lie in crippling your opponents enemy by killing the builders (with a drop of lurkers, templars & psi storm or siege tanks). But if you kill all the builders in WC3, it takes about a minute to restore production to its maximum.
Yeah, WC3 and Starcraft are different games. I'm just saying I like Starcraft & tons of builders more <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So true. At first I thought they were basically the same, one with heroes, a 4th race and a fantasy setting. But I think you probably point out the biggest difference between the games. Economics in Starcraft requires much more time, which imo is much better. Games where your resources flow easily and sustainably lack a huge amount of depth compared to ones where they dont.
These RTS games are so beyond me. You guys link these videos and all I see is a wad of mobs rushing at a wad of other mobs and one set of mobs wins and it's apparently really cool/impressive.
my strat in RTS games is like my strat in Civilization games. Minimal military, farm an awesome economy until I've got all the upgraedz, then churn out enough units to smash the enemy. Completely useless vs. hard mode AI or 99% of human players.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For your own good, don't post in this thread any more <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
You're practically saying that all you hear coming out of the orchestra is a bunch of sound to a room full of music enthusiasts. I can respect that you don't personally like RTS games, but your rationalizations are pretty close to blasphemous against all gamers.
It's not even that Starcraft requires more time. It's just the golden rule of booming--know the hotkeys to select your main economic building (or assign one) and to build a resource gatherer, and make sure your building is never idle until your returns diminish. That doesn't require too much effort or even much time once you get used to it. The big point is that it requires a significant <i>investment</i> and stresses just one building and one unit type in each race, emphasizing early-game raids and resource control that can stunt an enemy for the rest of the game. One neat feature in many RTS games is the set of graphs presented after every match where you can trace unit production, economic growth, and resource stockpiles through the game. It's very satisfying to see the enemy resource graph shudder, bend, and never fully recover when you sent those light raiders early in the game. Or, more immediately, it bites to look up and see your minerals sitting at 23, gas at 352, and your unit queues empty, knowing that the enemy amasses at the edge of that shadowy veil.
Okay, that was nitpicky, but it was worth it.