yeah, and you wouldnt believe the amount of SC players who ######ed and whined about it when blizzard put it in. Competetive players? Resistant to change? Never ;D
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
Yeah, i guess I never finished my point off and must have hit reply in a hurry.. but that's what I was going to say. For me, this change is amazing, and really helps me do some basic macro stuff and I've seen the complaints from the pro players who want to protect complexity. I think this absolutely an improvement to the game UI that does not damage the overall complexity of the game and will also free up macro time for the pro players to devote elsewhere.
<!--quoteo(post=1761151:date=Mar 25 2010, 03:26 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Mar 25 2010, 03:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1761151"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah, i guess I never finished my point off and must have hit reply in a hurry.. but that's what I was going to say. For me, this change is amazing, and really helps me do some basic macro stuff and I've seen the complaints from the pro players who want to protect complexity. I think this absolutely an improvement to the game UI that does not damage the overall complexity of the game and will also free up macro time for the pro players to devote elsewhere.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Despite being a terrible macro player in SC, I liked the old way in terms of gameplay rhytm and challenge. For SC2 something had to be done though, and I think MBS was a logical choise.
The thing I really like is that Blizzard first went through SC1, studied it and then proceeded to improve it. The macro tasks are moved to features like Chrono boost, MULE and Inject larva instead of just getting removed completely.
Just dropping them would've caused the game to boil down to smaller details. In SC different players prioritize different elements of game and have very different skills in certain aspects of the game. That allows far bigger variation in play styles than WC3 for example. In SC I feel I'm playing the game my way, while in WC3 I often feel that I just have to stick to the plan that had been figured out by hundreds of players before me.
Edit: So yeah, I guess I just wanted to say that I appreciate how Blizzard does their research and actually manages to shape challenges into more inuitive form while still preserving a lot of what made SC feel awesome.
<!--quoteo(post=1761132:date=Mar 25 2010, 11:11 AM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Mar 25 2010, 11:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1761132"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because NS is such a great game. In competitive play there are about 10 teams in europe, some of them play only ENSL tournaments and it is mostly playing against 2-3 different teams with wide skill level. The reason NS is not expanding is mostly because it is old and nobody is interested in playing it competitively due small scene.
Theres a chance that with new graphics and as a free game it would be open to more players and that would hopefully increase the population and therefore competitive scene.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just to clearify would you theoreticaly agree that a game can be easier to learn and still be challenging to master than his sequel ?
<!--quoteo(post=1761159:date=Mar 25 2010, 04:26 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Mar 25 2010, 04:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1761159"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just dropping them would've caused the game to boil down to smaller details. In SC different players prioritize different elements of game and have very different skills in certain aspects of the game. That allows far bigger variation in play styles than WC3 for example. In SC I feel I'm playing the game my way, while in WC3 I often feel that I just have to stick to the plan that had been figured out by hundreds of players before me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like that point.. I'd say I feel exactly the same about SC and WC3, and sort of the same way when it comes to TF2 vs TFC or Q:TF, or other halflife shooters as compared to source shooters. Just feels like something is.. amiss. It's not that you can't be better at someone else in TF2 quite the opposite but nevertheless it does come down to much much smaller details instead of more broad strokes.
<!--quoteo(post=1761163:date=Mar 25 2010, 07:21 PM:name=1mannARMEE)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1mannARMEE @ Mar 25 2010, 07:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1761163"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just to clearify would you theoreticaly agree that a game can be easier to learn and still be challenging to master than his sequel ?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If it cuts gameplay, no. I have always preferred it hard but I guess it is a necessery for NS2 to sell.
<!--quoteo(post=1761159:date=Mar 25 2010, 04:26 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Mar 25 2010, 04:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1761159"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In SC different players prioritize different elements of game and have very different skills in certain aspects of the game. That allows far bigger variation in play styles than WC3 for example. In SC I feel I'm playing the game my way, while in WC3 I often feel that I just have to stick to the plan that had been figured out by hundreds of players before me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, I never really enjoyed watching competetive players in WC III who always run the basic strategies for their races, but these players who do this never scout enough and sometimes get fully overrun by things they'd never expected the enemy to do.
I don't think WCIII has so much fewer tactics, it ofcourse has certain tactics that work "better" under certain conditions and versus certain races, but if you truly have skill you can pull off any tactic, that's why I enjoyed watching the mouz people play, they often tried out new things even if they were up to equally skilled enemies.
I'm a noob, so I stick with noob tactics for example a noob could never handle Witch Doctors + Grunts, but you'll never see that against a pro (at least nearly never) even if a single witch doctor to ensure map control is very awesome, but those "pros" most of the time never think out of the box.
So WCIII has certain strategies depending on which level you play, at least for me :=) ---
On the Starcraft thing (I really don't play it a lot) I recall an event that they wanted to change that you can put the way points on the HQs on the ressource nodes so the workers walk there automatically after being summoned, which resulted in a huge cry by the competetive community. I find this very amusing, because such "useless" micromanagement isn't something that makes a good player imho, a good player should be aware of what happens around him and not be faster in microing a stupid thing like this, I sometimes don't understand how the competetive players can be so conservative, is it that the difference beteween a new player and the highend pro is a little less after such a feature gets introduced, if so all competetive players have a real problem with their ego, I hope thats not the real issue here.
I'm not sure how they changed from SC1 to SC2, but I hope they changed the whole UI and controls of the game, because for a game that is designed for a maximum of 200 "food" you get sick with just controling 12 units at once; or you just get sick with using abilities the way you have to use them in SC1, all one by one. I mean it's certainly a nice game, but these things what some people think makes them pro are really stupid things which only make it impossible for a new player to pull off anything usefull and I don't know that should be the thing for any game.
At the same time they shouldn't go into a frenzy and take away all things they think that might be stupid, because than you end up with only the hallow core of the game, DotA to LoL might be a good example from a DotA point of view.
So UWE needs to achieve a good balance between improving the weird mechanics and adding new things to learn, it wouldn't be fun to have the same mechanics like NS1, because all of us already know them to the tiniest detail, so maybe those NS1 pros that are afraid of change are just afraid that they'll start on the same level as the average new player that just bought NS2.
I hope that's not the case,
1mannARMEE
EDIT: <!--quoteo(post=1761175:date=Mar 25 2010, 06:53 PM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Mar 25 2010, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1761175"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If it cuts gameplay, no. I have always preferred it hard but I guess it is a necessery for NS2 to sell.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If thats the case you might wanna try a game called <a href="http://kayin.pyoko.org/iwbtg/downloads.php" target="_blank">"I wanna be the guy"</a>
On your point with the gameplay, it's really tough to tell, because we have to agree on what gameplay means for both of us, I don't think moving every worker from it's spawn position over to the wood and click once every 10 seconds to make him chop lumber in a real time strategy game is something that enhances gameplay, so it can be taken away, but if you make your worker producing building to build every worker you might need on it's own and send them wherever you might need them without you having to do anything that might be a little too much.
Now the real problem with the NS1 movement is that it is funny as hell if you mastered it, but you have to master it in a certain stupid way as the (stupid) example above. So maybe an interesting way of mastering that new skill in NS2 might work out better for all of us, without taking away the things you can pull off with it after you mastered it.
<!--quoteo(post=1761177:date=Mar 25 2010, 01:05 PM:name=1mannARMEE)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1mannARMEE @ Mar 25 2010, 01:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1761177"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If thats the case you might wanna try a game called <a href="http://kayin.pyoko.org/iwbtg/downloads.php" target="_blank">"I wanna be the guy"</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's an obvious red herring. No one reads your posts because they are full of holes like this. He said he's in favour of good gameplay that is not cut short by simplicity, not that he prefers wrote difficulty.
If all everyone writes is the pure truth there wouldn't be anything to discuss about ? My posts are full of holes, because I most of the time just write down what I think at the time, which might be stupid, I admit.
With the link to that game, I just thought if he likes it tough he might like that game, because I enjoyed it. If I read something there are tons of things that jump to my mind, like a movie quote (most of the time its Monty Python), a quote from a book, any of the 718 xkcds or in this case this game, sometimes I care to share and if you don't appreciate that I'm sorry for you, but there was nothing intended with linking him this game, additionally who are you to judge if he might like it.
It's not that I'm evil and try to confuse people, I just do the same everybody does here, wasting time until friday :)
About the Starcraft 2 changes : the UI is way more ok now ( mbs and building controls mainly ) but they still made up some good macro stuff so that you still go back to your base quite often. SC2 remains macro intensive.
Also, the real question should be ( imo ) : was NS that hard or... was it too poorly explained/guided ?
<!--quoteo(post=1761177:date=Mar 25 2010, 07:05 PM:name=1mannARMEE)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1mannARMEE @ Mar 25 2010, 07:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1761177"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hmm, I never really enjoyed watching competetive players in WC III who always run the basic strategies for their races, but these players who do this never scout enough and sometimes get fully overrun by things they'd never expected the enemy to do.
I don't think WCIII has so much fewer tactics, it ofcourse has certain tactics that work "better" under certain conditions and versus certain races, but if you truly have skill you can pull off any tactic, that's why I enjoyed watching the mouz people play, they often tried out new things even if they were up to equally skilled enemies.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Can you elaborate a bit? TH000 has some innovation, that's alright, but he's considered to be one of the craziest players around just because he does some innovation. And even he does relatively standard stuff 90% of the time. Fly100% uses far seer once in a while, but that's all the innovation I can think of unless you go into map specific creeping patterns/single decisions in the game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm a noob, so I stick with noob tactics for example a noob could never handle Witch Doctors + Grunts, but you'll never see that against a pro (at least nearly never) even if a single witch doctor to ensure map control is very awesome, but those "pros" most of the time never think out of the box.
So WCIII has certain strategies depending on which level you play, at least for me :=)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Obviously on newbie vs newbie games you can get away with anything. The higher the skill goes, the less variation you'll see. At least I don't feel comfortable playing strategies that are based completely on the fact that my opponent doesn't play well.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->On the Starcraft thing (I really don't play it a lot) I recall an event that they wanted to change that you can put the way points on the HQs on the ressource nodes so the workers walk there automatically after being summoned, which resulted in a huge cry by the competetive community. I find this very amusing, because such "useless" micromanagement isn't something that makes a good player imho, a good player should be aware of what happens around him and not be faster in microing a stupid thing like this, I sometimes don't understand how the competetive players can be so conservative, is it that the difference beteween a new player and the highend pro is a little less after such a feature gets introduced, if so all competetive players have a real problem with their ego, I hope thats not the real issue here.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> People look for different things in games. Most people want to play something that requires something they can learn without going insane. Meanwhile for example I tremendously enjoy the feeling of being completely overwhelmed by new things to learn and cope with. In Starcraft part of the charm is teaching your brain and hand-eye coordination to handle insane amounts of tasks simultaneously, even if some are nearly mechanical at some parts of the game.
At least for me it has got nothing to do with being able to be better than someone through those mechanics; they are just part of the challenge. I'm terrible at Starcraft macro, but that just makes me want to play more of it. It challenges my mind and I enjoy it more than nearly anything released within the last 5 years or so.
I don't know if demanding the removal of automining or MBS is realistic in any way, but I definitely can see what people are after with that. SC represents a dying breed of games that give you a different kind of challenge and gaming experience than almost any of the new games. There are obviously big expectations for the sequels of such games.
I think the lack of a training level didn't help. Noone could learn to comm because if you didn't know about the right build orders you'd be booted out straight away. It's too bad the community made training map came far far too late to make any difference.
<!--quoteo(post=1761175:date=Mar 25 2010, 07:53 PM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Mar 25 2010, 07:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1761175"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If it cuts gameplay, no. I have always preferred it hard but I guess it is a necessery for NS2 to sell.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> While I take any choice made in favor of accessibility instead of gameplay with long teeth, there's no point being fanatic about this. For example, I don't think +movement removed much from fading but it helped beginners to get hold of it more easily. Also the position on issues depends on your starting coordinates (I'm referring to game theory) . Some hardcore 1.04 player could have argued that he has learned all the hotkeys and this new "qwerasdfzxcv" removes his skill compared to people who have not learned this. So its all relative. Instead of trying to set some fixed "coordinates" for gameplay/accessibility starting points for an argument, every feature should be measured with its own merits. It's all relative.
Also, keep in mind we got NS1 free. I doubt you'd all be so hardcore about everything if it was your money (and financial future) on the line. I know a RTS-hybrid that is very hard to learn but has great gameplay. Its name is Allegiance, Gamespot named in the best game of its year who nobody played, because of steep learning curve.
<!--QuoteBegin-Gamespot+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gamespot)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, Allegiance has captured the hearts of only a small group of very dedicated sim fans, and interest slowly dwindled after the game's initial release back in April. Allegiance requires more effort to learn and master than most other games, and as a result, the players who stick with it are the cream of the crop. This high-quality online community really cares about the game but needs far more members to make Allegiance a viable online game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1761189:date=Mar 25 2010, 08:52 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Mar 25 2010, 08:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1761189"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Can you elaborate a bit? TH000 has some innovation, that's alright, but he's considered to be one of the craziest players around just because he does some innovation. And even he does relatively standard stuff 90% of the time. Fly100% uses far seer once in a while, but that's all the innovation I can think of unless you go into map specific creeping patterns/single decisions in the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are right most of the time their crazyness boils down to a non typical hero choice (which farseer is not) and sometimes they do tower rushes maybe even with undead or I recall something like a acolyte rush together with a dreadlord on close positions, a Shaman + Troll witchdoctor mass vs basic night elf stuff....
But in the end, if they have to win a match they most of the time stick with the stable stuff just as everybody else and this might be the flaw in WcIII, that there is not enough stable stuff, or it's hard to balance things out, so that they work stable, but aren't overpowered.
<!--quoteo(post=1761163:date=Mar 25 2010, 09:21 AM:name=1mannARMEE)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1mannARMEE @ Mar 25 2010, 09:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1761163"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just to clearify would you theoreticaly agree that a game can be easier to learn and still be challenging to master than his sequel ?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In my opinion, a multiplayer FPS game is impossible to be both easy to learn, and hard to master. If it's so hard to master, then as a new player, you'll just get pooped on by those "pros" for a long time. mmmmm this is hard to elaborate...
I really do want to repeat the fact that NS doesn't have a big budget. It's approx. 3 guys working their butts off with little to no money. So when it hits release, the people buying the game are people who know about it already. Which we can assume are previous players, who need no intoduction to the game. There'll be no advertising, no special shelf spots, no promos. So why should we be so concerned about bringing in new players? honestly? Why do we care?
Comments
Despite being a terrible macro player in SC, I liked the old way in terms of gameplay rhytm and challenge. For SC2 something had to be done though, and I think MBS was a logical choise.
The thing I really like is that Blizzard first went through SC1, studied it and then proceeded to improve it. The macro tasks are moved to features like Chrono boost, MULE and Inject larva instead of just getting removed completely.
Just dropping them would've caused the game to boil down to smaller details. In SC different players prioritize different elements of game and have very different skills in certain aspects of the game. That allows far bigger variation in play styles than WC3 for example. In SC I feel I'm playing the game my way, while in WC3 I often feel that I just have to stick to the plan that had been figured out by hundreds of players before me.
Edit: So yeah, I guess I just wanted to say that I appreciate how Blizzard does their research and actually manages to shape challenges into more inuitive form while still preserving a lot of what made SC feel awesome.
Theres a chance that with new graphics and as a free game it would be open to more players and that would hopefully increase the population and therefore competitive scene.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just to clearify would you theoreticaly agree that a game can be easier to learn and still be challenging to master than his sequel ?
I like that point.. I'd say I feel exactly the same about SC and WC3, and sort of the same way when it comes to TF2 vs TFC or Q:TF, or other halflife shooters as compared to source shooters. Just feels like something is.. amiss. It's not that you can't be better at someone else in TF2 quite the opposite but nevertheless it does come down to much much smaller details instead of more broad strokes.
If it cuts gameplay, no. I have always preferred it hard but I guess it is a necessery for NS2 to sell.
Hmm, I never really enjoyed watching competetive players in WC III who always run the basic strategies for their races, but these players who do this never scout enough and sometimes get fully overrun by things they'd never expected the enemy to do.
I don't think WCIII has so much fewer tactics, it ofcourse has certain tactics that work "better" under certain conditions and versus certain races, but if you truly have skill you can pull off any tactic, that's why I enjoyed watching the mouz people play, they often tried out new things even if they were up to equally skilled enemies.
I'm a noob, so I stick with noob tactics for example a noob could never handle Witch Doctors + Grunts, but you'll never see that against a pro (at least nearly never) even if a single witch doctor to ensure map control is very awesome, but those "pros" most of the time never think out of the box.
So WCIII has certain strategies depending on which level you play, at least for me :=)
---
On the Starcraft thing (I really don't play it a lot) I recall an event that they wanted to change that you can put the way points on the HQs on the ressource nodes so the workers walk there automatically after being summoned, which resulted in a huge cry by the competetive community. I find this very amusing, because such "useless" micromanagement isn't something that makes a good player imho, a good player should be aware of what happens around him and not be faster in microing a stupid thing like this, I sometimes don't understand how the competetive players can be so conservative, is it that the difference beteween a new player and the highend pro is a little less after such a feature gets introduced, if so all competetive players have a real problem with their ego, I hope thats not the real issue here.
I'm not sure how they changed from SC1 to SC2, but I hope they changed the whole UI and controls of the game, because for a game that is designed for a maximum of 200 "food" you get sick with just controling 12 units at once; or you just get sick with using abilities the way you have to use them in SC1, all one by one. I mean it's certainly a nice game, but these things what some people think makes them pro are really stupid things which only make it impossible for a new player to pull off anything usefull and I don't know that should be the thing for any game.
At the same time they shouldn't go into a frenzy and take away all things they think that might be stupid, because than you end up with only the hallow core of the game, DotA to LoL might be a good example from a DotA point of view.
So UWE needs to achieve a good balance between improving the weird mechanics and adding new things to learn, it wouldn't be fun to have the same mechanics like NS1, because all of us already know them to the tiniest detail, so maybe those NS1 pros that are afraid of change are just afraid that they'll start on the same level as the average new player that just bought NS2.
I hope that's not the case,
1mannARMEE
EDIT: <!--quoteo(post=1761175:date=Mar 25 2010, 06:53 PM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Mar 25 2010, 06:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1761175"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If it cuts gameplay, no. I have always preferred it hard but I guess it is a necessery for NS2 to sell.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If thats the case you might wanna try a game called <a href="http://kayin.pyoko.org/iwbtg/downloads.php" target="_blank">"I wanna be the guy"</a>
On your point with the gameplay, it's really tough to tell, because we have to agree on what gameplay means for both of us, I don't think moving every worker from it's spawn position over to the wood and click once every 10 seconds to make him chop lumber in a real time strategy game is something that enhances gameplay, so it can be taken away, but if you make your worker producing building to build every worker you might need on it's own and send them wherever you might need them without you having to do anything that might be a little too much.
Now the real problem with the NS1 movement is that it is funny as hell if you mastered it, but you have to master it in a certain stupid way as the (stupid) example above. So maybe an interesting way of mastering that new skill in NS2 might work out better for all of us, without taking away the things you can pull off with it after you mastered it.
That's an obvious red herring. No one reads your posts because they are full of holes like this. He said he's in favour of good gameplay that is not cut short by simplicity, not that he prefers wrote difficulty.
My posts are full of holes, because I most of the time just write down what I think at the time, which might be stupid, I admit.
With the link to that game, I just thought if he likes it tough he might like that game, because I enjoyed it. If I read something there are tons of things that jump to my mind, like a movie quote (most of the time its Monty Python), a quote from a book, any of the 718 xkcds or in this case this game, sometimes I care to share and if you don't appreciate that I'm sorry for you, but there was nothing intended with linking him this game, additionally who are you to judge if he might like it.
It's not that I'm evil and try to confuse people, I just do the same everybody does here, wasting time until friday :)
the UI is way more ok now ( mbs and building controls mainly ) but they still made up some good macro stuff so that you still go back to your base quite often. SC2 remains macro intensive.
Also, the real question should be ( imo ) :
was NS that hard or... was it too poorly explained/guided ?
I don't think WCIII has so much fewer tactics, it ofcourse has certain tactics that work "better" under certain conditions and versus certain races, but if you truly have skill you can pull off any tactic, that's why I enjoyed watching the mouz people play, they often tried out new things even if they were up to equally skilled enemies.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you elaborate a bit? TH000 has some innovation, that's alright, but he's considered to be one of the craziest players around just because he does some innovation. And even he does relatively standard stuff 90% of the time. Fly100% uses far seer once in a while, but that's all the innovation I can think of unless you go into map specific creeping patterns/single decisions in the game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm a noob, so I stick with noob tactics for example a noob could never handle Witch Doctors + Grunts, but you'll never see that against a pro (at least nearly never) even if a single witch doctor to ensure map control is very awesome, but those "pros" most of the time never think out of the box.
So WCIII has certain strategies depending on which level you play, at least for me :=)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Obviously on newbie vs newbie games you can get away with anything. The higher the skill goes, the less variation you'll see. At least I don't feel comfortable playing strategies that are based completely on the fact that my opponent doesn't play well.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->On the Starcraft thing (I really don't play it a lot) I recall an event that they wanted to change that you can put the way points on the HQs on the ressource nodes so the workers walk there automatically after being summoned, which resulted in a huge cry by the competetive community. I find this very amusing, because such "useless" micromanagement isn't something that makes a good player imho, a good player should be aware of what happens around him and not be faster in microing a stupid thing like this, I sometimes don't understand how the competetive players can be so conservative, is it that the difference beteween a new player and the highend pro is a little less after such a feature gets introduced, if so all competetive players have a real problem with their ego, I hope thats not the real issue here.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People look for different things in games. Most people want to play something that requires something they can learn without going insane. Meanwhile for example I tremendously enjoy the feeling of being completely overwhelmed by new things to learn and cope with. In Starcraft part of the charm is teaching your brain and hand-eye coordination to handle insane amounts of tasks simultaneously, even if some are nearly mechanical at some parts of the game.
At least for me it has got nothing to do with being able to be better than someone through those mechanics; they are just part of the challenge. I'm terrible at Starcraft macro, but that just makes me want to play more of it. It challenges my mind and I enjoy it more than nearly anything released within the last 5 years or so.
I don't know if demanding the removal of automining or MBS is realistic in any way, but I definitely can see what people are after with that. SC represents a dying breed of games that give you a different kind of challenge and gaming experience than almost any of the new games. There are obviously big expectations for the sequels of such games.
While I take any choice made in favor of accessibility instead of gameplay with long teeth, there's no point being fanatic about this. For example, I don't think +movement removed much from fading but it helped beginners to get hold of it more easily. Also the position on issues depends on your starting coordinates (I'm referring to game theory) . Some hardcore 1.04 player could have argued that he has learned all the hotkeys and this new "qwerasdfzxcv" removes his skill compared to people who have not learned this. So its all relative. Instead of trying to set some fixed "coordinates" for gameplay/accessibility starting points for an argument, every feature should be measured with its own merits. It's all relative.
Also, keep in mind we got NS1 free. I doubt you'd all be so hardcore about everything if it was your money (and financial future) on the line. I know a RTS-hybrid that is very hard to learn but has great gameplay. Its name is Allegiance, Gamespot named in the best game of its year who nobody played, because of steep learning curve.
<!--QuoteBegin-Gamespot+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gamespot)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, Allegiance has captured the hearts of only a small group of very dedicated sim fans, and interest slowly dwindled after the game's initial release back in April. Allegiance requires more effort to learn and master than most other games, and as a result, the players who stick with it are the cream of the crop. This high-quality online community really cares about the game but needs far more members to make Allegiance a viable online game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are right most of the time their crazyness boils down to a non typical hero choice (which farseer is not) and sometimes they do tower rushes maybe even with undead or I recall something like a acolyte rush together with a dreadlord on close positions, a Shaman + Troll witchdoctor mass vs basic night elf stuff....
But in the end, if they have to win a match they most of the time stick with the stable stuff just as everybody else and this might be the flaw in WcIII, that there is not enough stable stuff, or it's hard to balance things out, so that they work stable, but aren't overpowered.
Just thought everyone should know.
In my opinion, a multiplayer FPS game is impossible to be both easy to learn, and hard to master. If it's so hard to master, then as a new player, you'll just get pooped on by those "pros" for a long time. mmmmm this is hard to elaborate...
I really do want to repeat the fact that NS doesn't have a big budget. It's approx. 3 guys working their butts off with little to no money. So when it hits release, the people buying the game are people who know about it already. Which we can assume are previous players, who need no intoduction to the game. There'll be no advertising, no special shelf spots, no promos. So why should we be so concerned about bringing in new players? honestly? Why do we care?
Context man, context.