UI rule of thumb.

There has been a lot of debates about the U.I. and whether it is infringing on a player's skill or not, but I think what people might be missing is how it balances the aspects of the game. Basically, how it allocates skill placement based on importance of said aspect, not whether it is reducing "skill" or not. Actually, I think skill always floats around. It can never really be changed, the only thing can be changed is its focus point. Skill would be a constant no matter how the U.I. is altered, just where it can be applied more effectively is the real point of attention.

I think that the U.I. can manifest itself in many different manners with little consequence, the only area where it would start to get dicey would be when it crosses the boundary that ultimately eliminates a feature of the game. Not that it actually has, yet, but it seems to be getting a little too close to the edge in one area. The only change the to the U.I. at all that has me concerned is the auto-mine feature. Once you set a rally point from a nexus on to a mineral patch, or vespene geyser, the workers when built will start to mine without our intervention. I will admit that this is certainly is a convenient feature of the game and is a good idea, but removes too much concentration from the act mining. I believe it does this by violating a rule of thumb that I think applies to almost all games, especially of the RTS genre.

The rule of thumb I have come up with, which probably isn't originally mine, is simply that the U.I. of a game is flawed, in one aspect, if you can perform an important function of the game accurately with your eyes closed. My reasoning behind this is relatively simple. If you eliminate an essential contact point of the game, in this case vision, then you shouldn't, in my opinion, be able to consistently maintain a pressing process. In this case it would be the gathering of resources to fuel your army and strategy.

With the new control system once you set a rally point to a mineral field the only interaction with them is that of, at most, two buttons; in this case I would choose '0' and 'P' just because Protoss is the most show cased race so far. After you set the rally point(s) all of your economy is governed by two buttons. You no longer need to impart a fair amount of concentration to utilize that function of the game. And it so happens that this function of the game is extremely important to the game play itself.

Now, this wouldn't be, in my mind, such a awkward addition if the component it was refashioning wasn't so important and constant. I suppose unlike other popular games in the RTS genre such as Warcraft III or Command and Conquer 3, worker's construction in Starcraft is never halted unless for very specific reasons. Unless you are in an extremely late game where your max cap has been reached and you direly need more offensive or defensive units than your opponent then you wouldn't stop utilizing workers in order to gain an economic advantage. This is especially important in early games where the slightest economic advantage can tell the fate of the game. This is indeed also why strategic drops are so important. Not does that sneaky strategy reduce their economic progression, but it also increases their immediate labor and splits their decision making ability for a short time.

I feel that with auto-mining the economy becomes to easily stabilized at any given moment of the game and is additionally equal between players regardless of skill level. As per the rule of thumb that I have proposed, resource management has come to a point to where its labor is not equal to its importance. Indeed it has become too convenient to merit its relevance to the game all together. Confrontation aside, you no longer have to concentrate at your workers, besides to set a rally point from a nexus to a resource field, or even look at them to maintain a steady and constant stream of resources. I don't believe that this reduces that skill to be had in the game, I just feel it relocates in a manner that doesn't best suit the balance of concentration requirement.

Of course, this is only my conjecture. I have not actually played and tested the game thoroughly so I can be wrong in every aspect.

 

Most games are never decided by that extra 16 or 24 minerals you get at the beginning of a game because you are a pro at allocating your miners correctly. It isn't a big deal. If every pro player of Starcraft, which is not the majority of those that play the game, insist on not having auto-mine that's fine.

However, the idea that crippling their economy is not crippling because they don't have to make sure their new workers start mining and it doesn't split their attention is absurd. Also, auto-mine will never make the economies of a skilled player and a noob equal. Pros are far more capable at expanding to new resource locations and being able to defend it properly. Noobs on the other hand tend to not be able to.

I find the entire UI debate rather silly. If you don't like it, just don't use it. Don't make them remove it from the game and ruin it for those that want it.

 

I never said it would make noobs equal to pros. That is what I stated the exact opposite of. Skill remains the same no matter how the U.I. is changed. And I disagree, there have been several games in which a drop has decided the game. Once your economy is disrupted, especially in early game, you are in jeopardy of losing the "unit number game" in which you will have to prevail with micro or defense lest your opponent overruns you with more numbers. I also think that crippling someone's economy is indeed crippling over all. The economy is the manifestation of you as the player. Without economy there are no buildings, units, or strategy to speak of. To have it effectively ruined is to not only to stunt your plans in time, but also give your opponent more of an advantage in time.

And the argument of not using something if I don't like is out of the question. All competition is started with an equal playing field, I will have to use it if it is implemented unless both players agree to abstain from utilizing that feature; which is even more absurd.

No debate is silly, they are all valid. They are only detrimental when they become arguments. As long as both parties acknowledge that everything they say is open ended then it all remains fictitious, as it should. It would also be a little presumptuous to say that people want something before they have experienced it. Unless the community has played Starcraft 2 they are not certain if the truly have the same ideas as Blizzard in terms of game play.

 

What if it helps noobs to equal the pros? Are the pros afraid of that? I think its gonna be much cooler once the game is less focused on sending those idle probes to the minerals or selecting multiple buildings one by one to make units. Its gonna be less macro and more countering, scouting, fighting and micro managing.

As Lima Bean said, skill is not going to just fade away, it is going to get focused in new aspects, cooler aspects.

 

I think you are right, Lemmy. The skill can't disappear, it can only be relocated. What I am concerned with is that the where the concentration is being relocated to is not fully equal to that of its original location. In this case it will be transferred to battle micro and other strategy.

I don't want to imply that those are not worthy of taking the place of macro management, but it wouldn't be fully justified in competitive spirit in terms of a sequel. What I mean is that from a Starcraft to Starcraft 2 point of view we already have micro and strategy, but we also have macro control. If Starcraft 2 is relieving us of that macro control, to an extent, then how are they adding to the features left to make them more time consuming and intense. I wish Blizzard would elaborate on this more because at the moment it seems that micro control is very similar to that of Starcraft. Sure there are units that can traverse cliffs, teleport, and transform, but how different is that from the original Starcraft? Once people get a set feel for those units their novelty will go only so far. I just see macro control as such an important feature because it is something you can lose or win by. If you don't watch it properly then you can very well lose by it. As it looks in Starcraft 2, no one can really lose control of it. I mean yes, you can technically, but as far as simplicity goes it can't really become easier to manage.

I like to view Starcraft as a plate spinning contest. The more plates the more impressive it is, to a degree. And the more plates you have the more ways you can win or lose, whichever the case may be. I see removing macro management as removing a plate. Only if they introduce another one, or force players to spin a remaining plate twice as fast, is the slack taken up.