SC2 Rant - Page 2

On August 14 2007 00:10 intrigue wrote:
opinions can be incorrect rpf, just like questions can be stupid
this isn't a matter of you being a lone voice of reason against hordes of bandwagoners, people disagree for a reason

you insult everyone else's intelligence when you martyr yourself
how about you try to address some of my points instead of taking the easy road and complain about how the whole world's against you

On August 14 2007 00:05 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:


nope....and if apm means nothing why is it nearly every pro has at least 200 apm? this isnt because they dont need it

On August 14 2007 00:18 Kwark wrote:


No. Pros have both macro and strategy. Obviously strategy + macro > strategy alone. But outside korea strategy is more important than macro. Strategy is having the right units at the right time. It's reading the play of your opponent and knowing what he'll do and then countering it perfectly. It's expanding when you can hold it, harassing when they are weakest etc. The stuff in between is just fluff. The bit that takes skill is knowing which units you need, how much of your army should be goons and how much zealots, if it's safe to expand, what he is planning. Going to your gateways and going zzzz doesn't involve any thought, simply practice.

I win because I make better choices than my opponents. If they expo before it's safe I will notice it and I will punish them for it. That is good strategy. That's the part of the game that requires thinking. The making of the units with which I'll punish them does not.

Computers have perfect macro. It's a result of being a machine. They suck because they have weak strategy. Progamers have strong strategy and strong macro. If you made macro less important the same people would be progamers. Savior was not the best because he had good unit production. He was the best because, in ZvT for example, he'd tech to consume about 5 seconds before his nat would have fallen to a terran ball and then overwhelm them. His strategy was fine tuned to a precision that was insane. It's his mind that earned him the wins. His ability to read the game and understand how to get the most out of a situation. The rest of it is just trained monkey shit. Where intelligence comes in is knowing what units are needed, where they are needed and what to do with them. Not the actual building of the units.

If we want to have an apm dispute I'm happy to play you on an insanely low apm. We'll see what it's worth.

On August 14 2007 00:06 H_ wrote:


You're a skilled player as proven by the replays on your blog, but you no doubt know that 55 apm doesn't really cut it for production and micromanagement past early game.

On August 14 2007 00:22 Kwark wrote:

Yeah. These days I'm nearer 100 but I can drop to 50 or so if I really concentrate. As long as you know what you're doing you can win simply by massing units and attack moving at a foreigner level.

On August 14 2007 00:22 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:


apm dispute is pointless PvP anyways since it rarely gets to mid-game but we have already played on iccup i believe =-O you were on Kwark unless that was a fake and i was on NeO)ReSpOnSe remember? i realize strategy > apm but in today's game everyone has similiar builds from watching pro's and its more of a game of who can execute their builds and strategy's better rather than who has the better strategy alone and with higher apm you can most of the time execute your strategy/build/micro better

On August 14 2007 00:14 rpf wrote:
You're right--my preferences for a game currently being developed are inherently incorrect because you do not agree.

Why should I bother responding to your points when the logic behind you disagreeing is inherently flawed?

I do NOT have to agree with you. You do NOT have to agree with me.

An opinion is, by definition, subjective. My opinions are not objective observations of the current state of BW as applied to SC2. It is me saying, "I would prefer xyz, as opposed to the current development of the game."

But I guess throwing around insults is a bit easier than saying, "rpf, I disagree with point a because of b."

So, I'm going to ask you nicely (keyword: nicely). Why do you disagree that SC2 should not allow multiple buildings to be hotkeyed together, or that autocasting should not exists on specific units?

If SC2 stays the way it is, it won't matter how fast you are, or how skilled you are when it comes to macro, which last time I checked was probably the major point to playing SC. If you want micro, go play WC3 where the entire game revolves around up to four heroes being microed with a small army. If you want micro, you play SC, where the game involves large-scale army battles. Oops, too bad having a large army means nothing now./

You can hotkey buildings together, so now you can macro as if you had 400 APM. You can autocast specific options, such as making interceptors for a carrier, and I'm willing to bet the same goes for making scarabs for a reaver. Who knows what else they'll do.

On August 14 2007 00:29 Kwark wrote:


Yeah. I remember. You did some sexy reaver shit vs me. I've improved since then and would like a re.
Back on topic. You can't really believe that in the battle of minds that is Starcraft the ability of someone to spam i on their carriers is a test of skill?
I've always idealised this game as being nothing more than choices. Game starts and everything is equal. Both players make choices. Whoever makes the better choices wins. The stuff that happens on screen is just froth on the surface, a representation of the streams of choices being issued by both players colliding. The player who outthinks his opponent will gain the upper hand and win. Of course, this is a simplification of bw but a rather nice one. I like the concept of it.

On August 14 2007 00:29 Kwark wrote:


Yeah. I remember. You did some sexy reaver shit vs me. I've improved since then and would like a re.
Back on topic. You can't really believe that in the battle of minds that is Starcraft the ability of someone to spam i on their carriers is a test of skill?
I've always idealised this game as being nothing more than choices. Game starts and everything is equal. Both players make choices. Whoever makes the better choices wins. The stuff that happens on screen is just froth on the surface, a representation of the streams of choices being issued by both players colliding. The player who outthinks his opponent will gain the upper hand and win. Of course, this is a simplification of bw but a rather nice one. I like the concept of it.

On August 14 2007 00:05 rpf wrote:
This isn't about right vs. wrong; these are my opinions. Because you disagree, you are not right. Because you disagree, I am not wrong. Because you disagree, you simply disagree.

But I think the population of TL prefers to jump on the bandwagon and call me a dumbass despite not really grasping the simple concept that not everyone agrees with you.

On August 14 2007 00:32 intrigue wrote:
are you going to address my first post or not

On August 14 2007 02:58 Gokey wrote:
I'm going to ignore all this flaming in this thread...

I don't consider 10 gateway hotkeying/cycling "skill"... The evolution to grouping buildings is both logical and inevitable. Besides, what separates players on a higher level isn't how well they can click and hit a button, but how often and early they expand, their timing on attack/defense, and the unit choices they make.

Take away some parts of the tedious "building micro", and I think pros will show us even more spetacular micro in the game.

On August 14 2007 03:00 A3iL3r0n wrote:


If you isolate the hotkey cycling by itself, it is not necessarily a skill, if that was all you had to do. When you have to do that plus a million other things, then it becomes impressive.