3 ms·
Some of the commentary shows that the UI is a barrier . The fact we can understand the strategies, but cannot physically make it happen shows that at least some
by maerF0x0 8y ago
Some of the commentary shows that the UI is a barrier . The fact we can understand the strategies, but cannot physically make it happen shows that at least some of the advantage is just the precision of the inputs.
Could be a new way to play SC2 like games where we can better communicate our intentions to the game. For example, make a type of move action where the stalkers automatically retreat and stop to fire, instead of having to do move, attack, move, attack series of inputs.
- dwaltrip 8y agoI was just daydreaming the other day about an RTS where the UI controls and inputs are fully customizable by the users, for this exact reason. There could be even a community repository where the best known custom UIs are available.
- unsigner 8y agoThe best custom UI would have one button, "Launch DeepMind AI and let it win the game". The intermediate UIs would be along the continuum between full micro and this. Maybe developing these AI/UIs would be fun (until Google/DeepMind crushes you), but the game itself?
- degenerate 8y agoThis thought process (of the UI limiting the player) is a valid point when we are talking about Human vs. AI strength and weaknesses in RTS games. However, when pitting one human player against another, the UI limitation actually adds strategic depth to the game. Unlike pure strategy games like chess, in Starcraft when you have to move, attack, move, attack, it puts a physical burden on the player. This physical burden to work around the limited UI allows one player to outperform the other on both a strategic and physical playing field, in real time. If both players were freed of their physical shackles, it would become a much more boring display of pure strategy, which eventually would be "solved" and the game would cease to be fun. If you look at the difference between Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2, the two most significant UI changes are the ability to select more than 12 units at a time, and the ability to "multi-cast" spells in sequence when more than 1 spellcaster is selected. These two small UI improvements greatly reduce the skill gap between an average player and a "pro" player in Starcraft 2, to such a degree that many Starcraft 2 pro players went back to Starcraft 1, where their fast reflexes give them a much greater advantage against other players due to the limited UI. So an improvement to the UI would help human players beat AI, but it takes a strategic element out of the game when considering human vs. human.
- maerF0x0 8y agoI agree there are pros and cons to the physical mechanic. For example misclicks become a part of the game, whereas the RNG would be fair to each player about errors in preprogrammed walk/attack patterns.
- baddox 8y agoIt's really just a matter of of the game designers deciding what types of skills they want the game to require. If you want to reward micromanagement skills, then remove aids like that. If you want to reward strategy, then throw in all the micro aids. Personally, I think Starcraft 2 has chosen a near perfect balance, although I recognize that it leans more toward micromanagement than pretty much every competitive RTS game other than its predecessor. Coming from Brood War, I can say "you should be happy even being able to select huge numbers of units and hotkey groups of buildings." :)