On the Ball: Out Of Control

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

John Funk:
Actually, a lot of the defenses are pretty viable, just different. They made it MUCH easier for Terrans to wall off, for instance. And who needs goliaths for anti-air when you have Marines?

It's a much more intense feeling, knowing that you need to be ready and preparing for a potential rush right off the bat. I mean, I still always get to tech up, for instance. But you need to spend those minerals that you spend on Spine Crawlers on, say, Roaches.

I mean, I almost always build two Spine Crawlers as I'm building up my base, but I know I need an army too.

First of all, Goliaths with the Charon Booster had a range comparable to Guardians and Carriers unlike missile towers and other units or buildings with air attack, that made them the single best choice for base air defense, plus they were mobile. Marines have a short range, and are weak against everything, even a whole squadron of marines can't take down a carrier, never could. Terrans are almost defenseless from air attacks, just like the Zerg. That spore crawler is a joke. It's fragile and weak. Spore Colonies in SC1 were strong, albeit large. And two Sunken Colonies were enough to stop the early rush (supplemented with some hastily built zerglings). Spine Crawlers are a joke, doesn't even worth building them.

Sure, Supply Depos are passable now with the new lowering system, but why would I intentionally expose my supply generators? If they are destroyed I can't build units. The Protoss still has the cogwheel, why did Blizzard nerf the other base defenses, it's madness. SC2 is one hell of a lot more unit oriented instead of buildings. In SC1 at least I could build a strong base defense with every side, in SC2, only the Protoss.

And I don't know your level of playing in SC2, but in none of the matches I played in the beta was I able to tech up. My opponent simply overwhelmed me in minutes while I was still scrambling to get production going.

Also: Build times. In SC1, one factory of each kind was enough to build an army fairly quickly. In SC2, I need four of five barracks and six factories and three shipyards to produce units at the required speed. Minerals and gas is running off the counters, I have thousands of the stuff, yet my factories are unable to utilize the resources, I don't understand.

I think that Starcraft wouldn't work to well on an iPad, since most of the problems associated with mouse control (e.g. too large grouping, attacking wrong units), plus the controls would have to be classic C&C style (left click to move or attack)...

However, if Blizzard made a dedicated iPad version, a Starcraft Mini, then it might work.

Playbahnosh:
[quote="John Funk" post="6.184388.5561363"]
Also: Build times. In SC1, one factory of each kind was enough to build an army fairly quickly. In SC2, I need four of five barracks and six factories and three shipyards to produce units at the required speed. Minerals and gas is running off the counters, I have thousands of the stuff, yet my factories are unable to utilize the resources, I don't understand.

You can add on the fancy thingies as Terran that let you build 2 units at time, Zerg have heir Queen for larva boost, Protoss have the boost from HQ. Plenty of ways to build up rush force early on or continue the happy spam later in the game.

Keava:
You can add on the fancy thingies as Terran that let you build 2 units at time, Zerg have heir Queen for larva boost, Protoss have the boost from HQ. Plenty of ways to build up rush force early on or continue the happy spam later in the game.

The factories with reactor can only build basic units, like maries or Hellions. But what if I want a truckload of Thors, Ravens or Reapers instead? I'm bummed, that's what. Also, larva boost and that protoss boost costs energy and needs way too much micro in my opinion.

Sure, I don't have Uber Micro™ but I still could play SC1 well enough. Now, I'm a little pissed at SC2 for some of the changes, because the one thing they cranked up is micro. Its way more tedious to handle units and mount a successful attack since you have to use the special powers of all your units at the same time. Meh, I guess I'll just leave SC2 to the pros and play against the easy AI... :(

I'd love to see a great RTS on the Ipad or a similar touch interface, but not Starcraft II. Starcraft II is designed around using the keyboard to up your APM, take it away and all you have is a much fidlier experience. But if you build a game around larger scale strategy, simplified base building and good AI on your individual troops then that would be a blast on a solely touchscreen interface.

Therumancer:

I believe what you meant to say was "I suck at Starcraft, so my ego told me everyone else was cheating, so this is my haphazard and poorly researched justification of my own swindling ways."

It's OK, man. I suck too. Doesn't mean we gotta go and spoil the game.

Playbahnosh:

Keava:
You can add on the fancy thingies as Terran that let you build 2 units at time, Zerg have heir Queen for larva boost, Protoss have the boost from HQ. Plenty of ways to build up rush force early on or continue the happy spam later in the game.

The factories with reactor can only build basic units, like maries or Hellions. But what if I want a truckload of Thors, Ravens or Reapers instead? I'm bummed, that's what. Also, larva boost and that protoss boost costs energy and needs way too much micro in my opinion.

Sure, I don't have Uber Micro™ but I still could play SC1 well enough. Now, I'm a little pissed at SC2 for some of the changes, because the one thing they cranked up is micro. Its way more tedious to handle units and mount a successful attack since you have to use the special powers of all your units at the same time. Meh, I guess I'll just leave SC2 to the pros and play against the easy AI... :(

From my own expierience, SC is much more about macro rather than micro management. You just control big blobs and base same time. Micro intensive games are things like CoH and DoW2 where you really have to dance around with your units and base is only a reinforcement place. Which i prefer greatly over the spamfest of SC <.<

And uh, things like THORs aint supposed to be easy spammable, those are big strong units, they are supposed to take time to build. SC2 is much about counters, in the help tab you get a display of which units are strong/weak against others and thats what you have to memorize well. Terrans have plenty of options to play around the field like for eg. Vikings that are neat for harassing the enemies eco.

Keava:
From my own expierience, SC is much more about macro rather than micro management. You just control big blobs and base same time. Micro intensive games are things like CoH and DoW2 where you really have to dance around with your units and base is only a reinforcement place. Which i prefer greatly over the spamfest of SC <.<

And uh, things like THORs aint supposed to be easy spammable, those are big strong units, they are supposed to take time to build. SC2 is much about counters, in the help tab you get a display of which units are strong/weak against others and thats what you have to memorize well. Terrans have plenty of options to play around the field like for eg. Vikings that are neat for harassing the enemies eco.

Correction, StarCraft was a spamfest in the first game. SC2 needs many times the micro than SC did. Sure, in SC you could build a horde of maxed out Hydras, a+click them on the enemy base and they annihilated everything in their path. Same for Carriers or BCs. It was a game that's easy to get into but difficult to master. You didn't need the special powers of the units or the special units to win, but if you mastered the Defiler, Templars or the Science Vessel, and used them in combination with some clever micro, you could do wonders on the battlefield against spammers. But in SC2 is inescapable to use micro, since almost every passive skill from SC1 now needs activation by hand, and game got some very tedious micro stuff added to it, like the larva boost, the protoss booster power, and pretty much everything on the Terran side (Raven anyone?). And you have to use these powers if you wanna accomplish anything on the battlefield, there is no escaping it. Pretty much every unit has some special micro powers and they usually work best in combination with some other unit's special power, it just blows my mind. Gone are times of siege tank+goliath steamrolling, hydra and mutalisk spamming, and simple carrier bulldozing.

BTW, the THOR is a useless piece of crap as it is now. It's way too big, slow, clumsy, has weak attack, takes forever to build and it costs a fortune, just like the defense cannon on the CC, that rocket marine thingie and the flying transformer robot. The great majority of the units in the game are simply useless without some uber micro.

Yes, it may the fact that I suck at SC, I know, but at least I had fun playing SC1...

Playbahnosh:

BTW, the THOR is a useless piece of crap as it is now. It's way too big, slow, clumsy, has weak attack, takes forever to build and it costs a fortune, just like the defense cannon on the CC, that rocket marine thingie and the flying transformer robot. The great majority of the units in the game are simply useless without some uber micro.

Yes, it may the fact that I suck at SC, I know, but at least I had fun playing SC1...

The Thor could do with a little more mobility, I agree, but the Marauder and Viking!?? The Marauder is a fantastic unit when coupled with a Medivac and some Marines for good measure, and the Viking's air to air has brilliant range - not to
mention the damage they can do to a Collossus!

Playbahnosh:

Keava:
*Snip*

*Double snip*

I think what was meant to be said is that, compared to other games in the Real-Time Strategy genre, StarCraft II is more spammable than most. If you take a look at how the genre is going, you'll clearly see that micro is the new Hydralisk, in that it'll be your bread and butter to winning a match. Dawn of War, Company of Heroes and Command & Conquer 4 all have a lot more strategy with using different abilities, tactics and counters to win a match. However, unlike StarCraft II, they use a lot less units, so you tend to get the feel that you're controlling a platoon rather than an entire army. They're also control point based games where mobility is prefered over staying in one spot. Even the Defence MCV in C&C4 works better if it moves around to place semi-permanent defensive structures rather than turtle in one spot. It's just how the genre is starting to move.

Players want more complexity to their games and this is how RTS games have accomidated. Is it the best solution? No market will be 100% satisfied with any decision, but it does cover the majority of die-hard fans. Then again, you always have a game like Red Alert 3 which actually promotes large armies of units that have maybe one ability each for a little unique gameplay, but for the most part can be won by spamming either A) A lot of basic units, B) An somewhat large army of realy expensive units -or- C) A mix of semi-expensive units. You just need to shop around for the RTS that fits your mind-set.

My problem with this argument is that when its touch screen only people (you) will be complaining how it takes too long to select stuff or that people with big stubby fingers have a horrible time making accurate commands. The grass is ALWAYS greener.

Playbahnosh:

John Funk:
Actually, a lot of the defenses are pretty viable, just different. They made it MUCH easier for Terrans to wall off, for instance. And who needs goliaths for anti-air when you have Marines?

It's a much more intense feeling, knowing that you need to be ready and preparing for a potential rush right off the bat. I mean, I still always get to tech up, for instance. But you need to spend those minerals that you spend on Spine Crawlers on, say, Roaches.

I mean, I almost always build two Spine Crawlers as I'm building up my base, but I know I need an army too.

First of all, Goliaths with the Charon Booster had a range comparable to Guardians and Carriers unlike missile towers and other units or buildings with air attack, that made them the single best choice for base air defense, plus they were mobile. Marines have a short range, and are weak against everything, even a whole squadron of marines can't take down a carrier, never could. Terrans are almost defenseless from air attacks, just like the Zerg. That spore crawler is a joke. It's fragile and weak. Spore Colonies in SC1 were strong, albeit large. And two Sunken Colonies were enough to stop the early rush (supplemented with some hastily built zerglings). Spine Crawlers are a joke, doesn't even worth building them.

Sure, Supply Depos are passable now with the new lowering system, but why would I intentionally expose my supply generators? If they are destroyed I can't build units. The Protoss still has the cogwheel, why did Blizzard nerf the other base defenses, it's madness. SC2 is one hell of a lot more unit oriented instead of buildings. In SC1 at least I could build a strong base defense with every side, in SC2, only the Protoss.

And I don't know your level of playing in SC2, but in none of the matches I played in the beta was I able to tech up. My opponent simply overwhelmed me in minutes while I was still scrambling to get production going.

Also: Build times. In SC1, one factory of each kind was enough to build an army fairly quickly. In SC2, I need four of five barracks and six factories and three shipyards to produce units at the required speed. Minerals and gas is running off the counters, I have thousands of the stuff, yet my factories are unable to utilize the resources, I don't understand.

Your problem, man, is that you're playing SC2 like it's SC1. It's a different game.

And you expose your supply depots because they're relatively inexpensive to produce, and because they give Terran a pretty big early-game advantage. Since the Terran base unit is ranged while P/Z are melee, being able to start off the game by walling off your ramp with a supply depot or two and your Barracks (and then lifting off/replacing the Barracks with a Bunker when you're ready to build a Reactor/Tech Lab) means that your units can just shred any enemy that tries to attack from the safety behind them.

Yes, they give you supply, but that doesn't mean you need to treasure and protect them since they're relatively easy replaced. It's the same reason I scout with my Overlords.

Protoss can sorta wall off with proper pylon/gateway positioning, but it's a bit more difficult. The only race that truly can't do it is the Zerg - but even then, it's possible. Try spawning a creep tumor very early on with the Queen, then using it to keep replicating itself until you can put your two spine crawlers on either side of your ramp up. Then, put zerglings on the ramp itself, and roaches at the top of it. Anyone who attacks you is going to have to fight their way through the zerglings while being blasted by the Spine Crawlers and Roaches the entire way.

Protoss can't defend themselves with Photon cannons alone, any more than Terran can defend themselves with just Bunkers. It's perfectly possible to build a good base defense, you just can't defend on static buildings to do it - you need to be building units, too. And yes, you need to have multiple unit producers, you can't just rely on one (don't think you could in SC1, either). Why not have two Starports with tech labs building banshees/ravens while one with a Reactor pumps out Vikings and Medivacs? For the same reason, Zerg need multiple hatcheries.

SC2 isn't a game that encourages turtling, and now that I've gotten more experience (and gotten over that exact same "oh god what the hell he has five zealots and I have four zerglings wtf" hurdle) I honestly prefer it that way. It means that there's no period of "safety," you're in the game full-on right off the bat.

No offense, but this thread and article is why I'm not going to buy Starcraft II.

I've heard so many old timers complain about the evolution of RTSs, but the truth is that all that reduction of the amount of units and resource collecting was done for a reason (and please, before anybody brigns it up, I queued for Dune II when it came out and preordered Starcraft -Protoss edition box- months in advance). Dune II-based RTSs are clunky, messy affairs, with extremely complex controls and typically one single path to victory in the form of an optimal build queue and tons of micromanagement of large groups of units.

But there have been so many great games that go beyond this model by now that I just can't bring myself to return to it. Forget about Dawn of War II for a moment and let's discuss Homeworld. Tons of units in a 3d space, control groups and buildings (ok, capital ships, but still), but Relic sent that version of the genre off by giving you a persistent army and economy that made playing the campaign a matter of deciding whether to adjust or repeat previously successful tactics to match a new challenge. That was fun. Suddenly you didn't worry about your build order because your buildings were teleported with you from the last stage. Great.

Of course, in multiplayer Homeworld kind of reverted to classic playstyle, but it was still a move forward.

I agree with the article in that advanced play is killing RTSs, but I don't think it's a problem of control options. Key bindings are a symptom, not the disease. The problem is in the core design, in the unit building mechanics, in the inept drag-click-to-select basic control scheme. We keep getting excited over Dune II clones fifteen years after the fact in one of the worst cases of genre degeneration outside of JRPGs.

I don't know what the next revolution in the genre will be, but I know it sure needs one and, just to prove that point, I plan to skip Starcraft II completely. Because I won't have fun with it, anyway.

geldonyetich:

Nick Holmgren:

geldonyetich:
I don't see anything wrong with putting Star Craft on the iPad so long as it doesn't completely chug down the platform.

cause the amount of pants kicking will increase 10 fold and it would mean they would have 2 sets of leagues to run. Plaus they'd have to do a ton of balancing work to make sure it was fair on both formats, a change of platform will change the balance as zerg building from only one structure would be a god send on a touch format while it is only nice if your new now.

Oh, sorry, I forgot the so-ridiculously-over-competitive-that-if-a-game-goes-multi-platform-you-damn-well-better-eliminate-any-possible-advantage-from-that demographic.

Seriously, how do you sleep at night knowing people might be using peripherals such as the Peregrine?

No it would be because Blizzard themselves would have to release it and then re-do the balance work. They don't need to work with some glove that acts as a keyboard because they never released the game for that saying "it is great on glove too". If they went to the iPad it would mean they are knowingly entering into a new ui. If one race became more powerful then it would mean that blizzard would not meet their own quality squandered and it would be come a deformed version of the game it was trying to be.

thublihnk:

Therumancer:

I believe what you meant to say was "I suck at Starcraft, so my ego told me everyone else was cheating, so this is my haphazard and poorly researched justification of my own swindling ways."

It's OK, man. I suck too. Doesn't mean we gotta go and spoil the game.

I received 4 nearly identical messages of varying degrees of politeness on the subject, yours is the latest even if the "rudest" so I figured I'd respond here.

I have a tendency to ramble. The point was more along the lines of people who played both games have talked about Starcraft when issues of mods and such have occured in World Of Warcraft.

I do not play competitive RTS stategy games at all (though I do play fighting games, and no I am not great at them), as a result I don't know how good or bad I am at them. Most of the ones I enjoy most tend to be RTS-RPG hybrids and focused on single player (like Spellforce). "Warhammer 40k: Soulstorm" being the only one I ever goofed off with multiplayer to any real extent and that was a short term flirtation.

The point of my rant is more along the lines of this being common knowlege since Starcraft has generally been synonymous with out of control modding, with people more or less claiming that they were concerned that WoW was getting as bad as Starcraft (as opposed to vice versa).

When Blizzard set a policy against automated actions via mods in WoW, a lot of people were talking about how it was company wide, and a lot of people were saying that it was being done in reaction to complaints in competitive Starcraft, but they decided to run with it universally.

In the end I guess we will have to agree to disagree, I've heard differantly from you and others. While I acknowlege I could be wrong, I've heard a LOT more about Starcraft being heavily modded (to the point of it being a joke for many) than about it being played straight.

It's sort of like how many people insist that Alliance and Horde are balanced in WoW, especially on their forums. Yet the imbalance is so famous that strips like Penny Arcade have even mocked it calling rolling Alliance "one of the biggest gips in gaming" (or something to that effect). I simply assume this is more of a community of Starcraft players in a similar vein. :)

Therumancer:

thublihnk:

Therumancer:

I believe what you meant to say was "I suck at Starcraft, so my ego told me everyone else was cheating, so this is my haphazard and poorly researched justification of my own swindling ways."

It's OK, man. I suck too. Doesn't mean we gotta go and spoil the game.

I received 4 nearly identical messages of varying degrees of politeness on the subject, yours is the latest even if the "rudest" so I figured I'd respond here.

I have a tendency to ramble. The point was more along the lines of people who played both games have talked about Starcraft when issues of mods and such have occured in World Of Warcraft.

I do not play competitive RTS stategy games at all (though I do play fighting games, and no I am not great at them), as a result I don't know how good or bad I am at them. Most of the ones I enjoy most tend to be RTS-RPG hybrids and focused on single player (like Spellforce). "Warhammer 40k: Soulstorm" being the only one I ever goofed off with multiplayer to any real extent and that was a short term flirtation.

The point of my rant is more along the lines of this being common knowlege since Starcraft has generally been synonymous with out of control modding, with people more or less claiming that they were concerned that WoW was getting as bad as Starcraft (as opposed to vice versa).

When Blizzard set a policy against automated actions via mods in WoW, a lot of people were talking about how it was company wide, and a lot of people were saying that it was being done in reaction to complaints in competitive Starcraft, but they decided to run with it universally.

In the end I guess we will have to agree to disagree, I've heard differantly from you and others. While I acknowlege I could be wrong, I've heard a LOT more about Starcraft being heavily modded (to the point of it being a joke for many) than about it being played straight.

It's sort of like how many people insist that Alliance and Horde are balanced in WoW, especially on their forums. Yet the imbalance is so famous that strips like Penny Arcade have even mocked it calling rolling Alliance "one of the biggest gips in gaming" (or something to that effect). I simply assume this is more of a community of Starcraft players in a similar vein. :)

Please link me to any mods for Starcraft. This is the first I've ever heard of it.

Please link me to any mods for Starcraft. This is the first I've ever heard of it.[/quote]

Sure, this is what I turned up with a really quick search:

http://www.creepcolony.com/mods.shtml

Please note that I am not really "into" Starcraft so I've never dug deeply into their mod community and I'm sure you can find plenty of stuff besides this. You'll notice that the site itself talks about the mod editor but how it can only do so much, etc.. and that is where mods come in.

As modding Starcraft has no real interest to me personally, I'll have to leave any deep research into it to you (if your even really interested) I'm just proving that it does indeed exist since you had never heard of it.

Jordan Deam:
On the Ball: Out Of Control

StarCraft II needs to come out for the iPad. Seriously.

Read Full Article

Holy Smokes. I may now get the iPad if I can play Stracraft 2 with two mice (fingers)

I find myself sucking hard in SC2 as well, even though I was an awesome Starcraft player back in the day. With a couple hundred games played up until now, and with the look of an ex-competitive player, it's pretty easy to see why.

1: SC2 is faster than SC1. I really don't think we needed an RTS that is faster than SC1, it's just overkill. And no, you can't play at a lower speed, everyone is playing on Faster. At 180-200 apm, which was great for SC1, I now feel gimped and unable to keep up with the game.

2: SC2 is loaded with meaningless micromanagement that wasn't there in SC1 and there's no reason for it to be there now. Some abilities and mechanics should NOT have been there, they are a chore and they crush the game's pacing. I shoudn't have to manually spawn 3 extra larvae over 3 hatcheries every few seconds WHILE doing everything else in order to be able to perfect my gameplay. That shit is ridiculous.

3: Every single aspect of SC2 is focused on Early Game, you very very rarely get to see mid- or end-game tech, and when you do, stuff seems to be all kinds of broken. The defensive structures have a very short range and are pretty much useless. Especially the new "sunken colonies" should just be deleted already. Was it the idea that I am sacrificing power for mobility? WHAT mobility when I have to select building placement for every one of them and then wait for them to dance around for 5 seconds? SC1 was equally focused and balanced in all stages of a game. SC2 is only early game, or, if you prefer, a rushfest. Zerg? Roach rush or muta rush. Protoss? Void rush, zealot rush, or uber zealot rush with gateway in the middle of the map. Terran? "Flying guy" rush or 3 barracks and mass infantry. Bullshit.

I hope they improve the game before they release it, I really do, because right now it's just not what it was supposed to be.

Given how modifiable WoW is, and given WoWs success with it, I'd be disappointed if there weren't a similar level of it in SC2.

UI Mods do not give you PvP advantages. Mainly, UI mods just change the look and make information that you might otherwise have to look for be readily available. The unmodified WoW interface functions just fine for PvP. For PvE raids you may need more info like threat, but for PvP you can turn on all the info that makes a difference.

In WoW I think there are lag cheats out there, I think I've run into a few of them, but that's about it. Mostly they cause to you disconnect and you reconnect in a minute or so. At worst it is an occasional annoyance.

Even macros, I love 'em but I bet the best arena player doesn't use them, except for maybe insta-spell modifiers and even for them I bet pros would want to micro those to wait for just the right opportunities.

Back to SC2, as long as they let me rebind hotkeys, that's about as much modifiability as I need, though the more the better.

Therumancer:
Please link me to any mods for Starcraft. This is the first I've ever heard of it.

Sure, this is what I turned up with a really quick search:

http://www.creepcolony.com/mods.shtml

Please note that I am not really "into" Starcraft so I've never dug deeply into their mod community and I'm sure you can find plenty of stuff besides this. You'll notice that the site itself talks about the mod editor but how it can only do so much, etc.. and that is where mods come in.

As modding Starcraft has no real interest to me personally, I'll have to leave any deep research into it to you (if your even really interested) I'm just proving that it does indeed exist since you had never heard of it.[/quote]

Dude, those are just different gameplay mods. Like, playing a custom round of Use Map Settings. Nothing like you're talking about.

John Funk:

Therumancer:
Please link me to any mods for Starcraft. This is the first I've ever heard of it.

Sure, this is what I turned up with a really quick search:

http://www.creepcolony.com/mods.shtml

Please note that I am not really "into" Starcraft so I've never dug deeply into their mod community and I'm sure you can find plenty of stuff besides this. You'll notice that the site itself talks about the mod editor but how it can only do so much, etc.. and that is where mods come in.

As modding Starcraft has no real interest to me personally, I'll have to leave any deep research into it to you (if your even really interested) I'm just proving that it does indeed exist since you had never heard of it.

Dude, those are just different gameplay mods. Like, playing a custom round of Use Map Settings. Nothing like you're talking about.[/quote]

Well, then how about this, I'm not going to do any deep searching, just pointing you in the right direction:

http://www.edgeofnowhere.cc/viewtopic.php?t=421042

That one mentions a "Korean Drophack" which can "only be used once per game".

I suppose I could find some stuff if I wanted to dig for Starcraft custom UIs for making things more conveinent (ie able to act faster and the like), but again it would take a bit of searching and as I said my interest in competitive/multiplayer Starcraft is minimal. I'm merely pointing towards the existance of such things.

Nick Holmgren:

geldonyetich:

Nick Holmgren:

geldonyetich:
I don't see anything wrong with putting Star Craft on the iPad so long as it doesn't completely chug down the platform.

cause the amount of pants kicking will increase 10 fold and it would mean they would have 2 sets of leagues to run. Plaus they'd have to do a ton of balancing work to make sure it was fair on both formats, a change of platform will change the balance as zerg building from only one structure would be a god send on a touch format while it is only nice if your new now.

Oh, sorry, I forgot the so-ridiculously-over-competitive-that-if-a-game-goes-multi-platform-you-damn-well-better-eliminate-any-possible-advantage-from-that demographic.

Seriously, how do you sleep at night knowing people might be using peripherals such as the Peregrine?

No it would be because Blizzard themselves would have to release it and then re-do the balance work. They don't need to work with some glove that acts as a keyboard because they never released the game for that saying "it is great on glove too". If they went to the iPad it would mean they are knowingly entering into a new ui. If one race became more powerful then it would mean that blizzard would not meet their own quality squandered and it would be come a deformed version of the game it was trying to be.

Well, that does explain how you can sleep at night in a wide world of PC peripherals and yet entertain the idea that it's terrible if different people use different interfaces. It's not true, Blizzard developers really don't have any interest in designing the game with every little device in mind, they probably even put in multiple-monitor support, but it's nonetheless an excellent rationalization.

geldonyetich:

Nick Holmgren:

geldonyetich:

Nick Holmgren:

geldonyetich:
I don't see anything wrong with putting Star Craft on the iPad so long as it doesn't completely chug down the platform.

cause the amount of pants kicking will increase 10 fold and it would mean they would have 2 sets of leagues to run. Plaus they'd have to do a ton of balancing work to make sure it was fair on both formats, a change of platform will change the balance as zerg building from only one structure would be a god send on a touch format while it is only nice if your new now.

Oh, sorry, I forgot the so-ridiculously-over-competitive-that-if-a-game-goes-multi-platform-you-damn-well-better-eliminate-any-possible-advantage-from-that demographic.

Seriously, how do you sleep at night knowing people might be using peripherals such as the Peregrine?

No it would be because Blizzard themselves would have to release it and then re-do the balance work. They don't need to work with some glove that acts as a keyboard because they never released the game for that saying "it is great on glove too". If they went to the iPad it would mean they are knowingly entering into a new ui. If one race became more powerful then it would mean that blizzard would not meet their own quality squandered and it would be come a deformed version of the game it was trying to be.

Well, that does explain how you can sleep at night in a wide world of PC peripherals and yet entertain the idea that it's terrible if different people use different interfaces. It's not true, Blizzard developers really don't have any interest in designing the game with every little device in mind, they probably even put in multiple-monitor support, but it's nonetheless an excellent rationalization.

Firstly this is getting out of hand. Is there not better way to reply to someone? Second, upon further review it turns out your glove is just a bunch of short cut keys. That's basically just a keyboard warped on one hand, so its just another way to sue the same controls. A port to the Ipad would not use the same keyboard interface or even a remapped version of it due to the lack of keys. It doesn't matter if its "5 ttt" to make 3 muta's or "thumb to palm, thumb to pinky tip, thumb to pinky tip, thumb to pinky tip" they are basically the same, just mapped diffidently. with an Ipad port it wouldn't be a simple remap but a re-think and keeping the APM needed by the 2 formats the same would be near (and I mean really close) to impossible.

Nick Holmgren:

geldonyetich:

Nick Holmgren:

geldonyetich:

Nick Holmgren:

geldonyetich:
I don't see anything wrong with putting Star Craft on the iPad so long as it doesn't completely chug down the platform.

cause the amount of pants kicking will increase 10 fold and it would mean they would have 2 sets of leagues to run. Plaus they'd have to do a ton of balancing work to make sure it was fair on both formats, a change of platform will change the balance as zerg building from only one structure would be a god send on a touch format while it is only nice if your new now.

Oh, sorry, I forgot the so-ridiculously-over-competitive-that-if-a-game-goes-multi-platform-you-damn-well-better-eliminate-any-possible-advantage-from-that demographic.

Seriously, how do you sleep at night knowing people might be using peripherals such as the Peregrine?

No it would be because Blizzard themselves would have to release it and then re-do the balance work. They don't need to work with some glove that acts as a keyboard because they never released the game for that saying "it is great on glove too". If they went to the iPad it would mean they are knowingly entering into a new ui. If one race became more powerful then it would mean that blizzard would not meet their own quality squandered and it would be come a deformed version of the game it was trying to be.

Well, that does explain how you can sleep at night in a wide world of PC peripherals and yet entertain the idea that it's terrible if different people use different interfaces. It's not true, Blizzard developers really don't have any interest in designing the game with every little device in mind, they probably even put in multiple-monitor support, but it's nonetheless an excellent rationalization.

Firstly this is getting out of hand. Is there not better way to reply to someone?

If you can think of a better way to express the ideas I am, I'd like to hear it.

Second, upon further review it turns out your glove is just a bunch of short cut keys.

The glove wasn't the thing. It was just an example of thousands of such peripherals.

Given their existence, exactly what difference does the iPad Interface make the game balance?

geldonyetich:

Nick Holmgren:

geldonyetich:

Nick Holmgren:

geldonyetich:

Nick Holmgren:

geldonyetich:
I don't see anything wrong with putting Star Craft on the iPad so long as it doesn't completely chug down the platform.

cause the amount of pants kicking will increase 10 fold and it would mean they would have 2 sets of leagues to run. Plaus they'd have to do a ton of balancing work to make sure it was fair on both formats, a change of platform will change the balance as zerg building from only one structure would be a god send on a touch format while it is only nice if your new now.

Oh, sorry, I forgot the so-ridiculously-over-competitive-that-if-a-game-goes-multi-platform-you-damn-well-better-eliminate-any-possible-advantage-from-that demographic.

Seriously, how do you sleep at night knowing people might be using peripherals such as the Peregrine?

No it would be because Blizzard themselves would have to release it and then re-do the balance work. They don't need to work with some glove that acts as a keyboard because they never released the game for that saying "it is great on glove too". If they went to the iPad it would mean they are knowingly entering into a new ui. If one race became more powerful then it would mean that blizzard would not meet their own quality squandered and it would be come a deformed version of the game it was trying to be.

Well, that does explain how you can sleep at night in a wide world of PC peripherals and yet entertain the idea that it's terrible if different people use different interfaces. It's not true, Blizzard developers really don't have any interest in designing the game with every little device in mind, they probably even put in multiple-monitor support, but it's nonetheless an excellent rationalization.

Firstly this is getting out of hand. Is there not better way to reply to someone?

If you can think of a better way to express the ideas I am, I'd like to hear it.

Second, upon further review it turns out your glove is just a bunch of short cut keys.

The glove wasn't the thing. It was just an example of thousands of such peripherals.

Given their existence, exactly what difference does the iPad Interface make the game balance?

Firstly I meant the whole having to quote all this crap, didn't notice it eventually just hides it in the posted version. Secondly, where will the hot-keys go? Also the of the "thousands of peripherals" how many aren't just hot keys? okay so people get more hot-keys, why they need them I don't know but if they want them the more power to them. From what I've seen now one ever ends up using all 10 hot keys they currently have access to. Its more trying to fit hotkeys on the Ipad and still make the, readable.

Nick Holmgren:
Firstly I meant the whole having to quote all this crap, didn't notice it eventually just hides it in the posted version.

You can just remove it. Like this. Just make sure the quote tags match up.

Secondly, where will the hot-keys go? Also the of the "thousands of peripherals" how many aren't just hot keys? okay so people get more hot-keys, why they need them I don't know but if they want them the more power to them. From what I've seen now one ever ends up using all 10 hot keys they currently have access to. Its more trying to fit hotkeys on the Ipad and still make the, readable.

You're still missing the point.

For example, there's are such things as touch screen monitors. They're pretty much identical to an iPad interface - it just instantly moves the mouse pointer to where the player touches. Fully compatible with any PC game, StarCraft 2 included. Some can even detect something like the rotation of the finger which you can rig up to activate macros. They only run about $200 more than a normal monitor.

My point that this level playing field you seem to believe exists really isn't there, at least in terms of interface. Given the modularity of the PC interface, the iPad really makes no difference at all.

geldonyetich:

Nick Holmgren:

[quote] Secondly, where will the hot-keys go? Also the of the "thousands of peripherals" how many aren't just hot keys? okay so people get more hot-keys, why they need them I don't know but if they want them the more power to them. From what I've seen now one ever ends up using all 10 hot keys they currently have access to. Its more trying to fit hotkeys on the Ipad and still make the, readable.

You're still missing the point.

For example, there's are such things as touch screen monitors. They're pretty much identical to an iPad interface - it just instantly moves the mouse pointer to where the player touches. Fully compatible with any PC game, StarCraft 2 included. Some can even detect something like the rotation of the finger which you can rig up to activate macros. They only run about $200 more than a normal monitor.

My point that this level playing field you seem to exist really isn't there, at least in terms of interface. Given the modularity of the PC interface, the iPad really makes no difference at all.

you do realize that moving your hand across a screen is slower then a mouse right? I can move my mouse about 2 in and get across my monitor about a foot and a half. So if people feel like intentionally disadvantaging themselves go a head. I doubt Bilz would go out and intentionally release a game on a new format just as a straight up port. It would be clunky as hell. They have plans to teach people hotkeys with single-player "teaching" levels that ready you for multiplayer. Making the game for Ipad would just delay the release further and I'll bet that is it is possible someone will find a way to turn the Ipad into a touch mac book at which point it will just be a question of shoving the game onto the thing. If you want to take the time to make the mod for the interface so it will work go ahead. I on the other hand have been waiting too long for this game to see it pushed back b/c bliz is now applying their uber polish to and Ipad port. Being bliz they would never settle for a straight port but rather would spend a whole year just making the ui perfect.

Nick Holmgren:
you do realize that moving your hand across a screen is slower then a mouse right?

I'm going to stop you right there. Unless you have conducted laboratory-condition based tests on this, and have hard data right in front you, this is not an assertion you can make.

Making the game for Ipad would just delay the release further

Again, I'm going to have to stop you right there.

1. Nothing to do with what we were talking about.
2. Not true. Games get released on multiple platforms all the time without delaying them. They just release one platform first, then a few months down the line finis their second platform port.
3. It's yet to be determined if Starcraft 2 could even run on an iPad.

geldonyetich:

Nick Holmgren:
you do realize that moving your hand across a screen is slower then a mouse right?

I'm going to stop you right there. Unless you have conducted laboratory-condition based tests on this, and have hard data right in front you, this is not an assertion you can make.
[/qoute]
I'm going to stop you there and say that moving your hand 2 inches is going to be faster then moving it a foot an a half every day of the week.

Making the game for Ipad would just delay the release further

Again, I'm going to have to stop you right there.

1. Nothing to do with what we were talking about.
2. Not true. Games get released on multiple platforms all the time without delaying them. They just release one platform first, then a few months down the line finis their second platform port.
3. It's yet to be determined if Starcraft 2 could even run on an iPad.

I'm relatively sure the low quality would work. Have you seen SC2 on low settings? It looks like a dream-cast game. Also while their making it for Ipad why don't they just make it for ever natal and move and wii at the same time? Sad truth being, porting for more formats is kind of time consuming and really a float dream. I mean why hasn't valve released Left 4 Dead on PS3 yet? this argument is actually going the wrong way. Why should it come out for Ipad? its a much more limited format then the other options I just came up with.

Outright Villainy:
It's the main reason the wii works for so many people really, people who are new to games need completely intuitive controls or they'll be put off them. Not that they should completely supplant them or anything, as you said, complex controls are what allow competitive play to exist. Motion controls and touch screen are certainly a good introduction to games though.

Touch-based controls are like the extra wheels you put on a bike as a kid when you're still learning; they help you get going, but in the long run once you've gotten used to things, they only hamper you developing your skills.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here