|
On August 14 2007 02:26 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +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. But not ideas are equal or relative either. People are not just disagreeing with you just because. You put forth an normative judgment about quality, its only natural that the merits of such a judgment be scrutinized. If you are able dish out such a judgment you had better have the balls to take it back. I think I may have poorly worded some statements.
What I was trying to say in my first post is that I personally would prefer that I not be able to select multiple gateways, or automatically have units performing actions that I did not command.
Part of the reason I enjoyed playing BW was that there was so much to learn, and so much to do aside from application of strategy. There is micro, macro, scouting, unit choice, counters, counter-counters, and so on.
I just feel that having many actions that are necessary in BW being limited, or made easier, in a sense, will detract from the overall game.
But, I do acknowledge that a carrier making its own interceptors doesn't make the game worse; saying so wasn't really founded on anything. I just don't like units to do things on their own. I'm the player, and I like it to be my choices that win or lose me the game.
So no, having multiple gateway selection, or having autocast isn't going to destroy the game. It will still be fun; but I'd just like to see SC2 retain some of the elements that BW has.
Is that worded better? :/
On August 14 2007 02:33 Prodigy[x] wrote:
Yeah but I think people disagree with RPF more easily just because they think he's an easy target, which makes them faggots. I think that some enhancements is necessary to automize things but there needs to be a fine line. We've got interceptors building automatically, ok, how about marines that stim and spread automatically too? Or templars storming automatically too? I'm really confident the game will be great but multiple gate selection needs to go. Everyone tells me I'm an easy target. :/
But yeah, if other actions are autocast, like storm or stim, I honestly don't think that can help the game.
The great part about BW is that literally nothing is done for you, aside from medics healing, and workers mining (which requires the order to do so in the first place). I agree that there needs to be a line between automation and user input, but I'm not completely sure where that line should be exactly.
On August 14 2007 02:43 Aphelion wrote:
He has a tendency to whine and assume a victim stance in general, so that really explains how people disagree with him. When he doesn't accord the other posters the respect for their intelligence and judgment, its difficult to ask for the same in return. I'm so used to defending myself that I naturally get defensive on here anyhow, even if people are outright attacking me. At least I make the attempt to be polite, but will often revert to responding to rude comments in kind.
All I did was share my opinions on something, and was met with insults, and unfounded comments. I don't think it's fair to ask me to not defend myself.
I'm rarely the first one to be outright rude.
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. I understand what you're saying, and I think you made a great point.
I agree that hotkeying gateways doesn't require skill, but being able to macro efficiently in BW does, as you don't have enough hot keys to hot key every production facility you have. You have to come up with some sort of organized system for your limited quantity of hotkeys so that in the end you can macro efficiently.
It's just that the way it is in WC3, and I'm assuming will be in SC2 unless something changes, makes that easier, and as such, I believe, detracts a little.
But like I said, I personally prefer to have a challenge.
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9935 Posts
|
I don't care about multi-building selection, but what about smart casting? What do you think about that Kwark?
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9935 Posts
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?
and i responded civilly
at this point it's pretty obvious you're just d-_-o-_-d-_-g-_-i-_-n-_-g
|
Canada9720 Posts
On August 13 2007 23:31 panfus wrote:
You are fucking retarded, I hope it hurts to be you
|
On August 14 2007 03:14 intrigue wrote:Show nested quote +
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?
and i responded civilly at this point it's pretty obvious you're just d-_-o-_-d-_-g-_-i-_-n-_-g I can't take you seriously after all of the blatant and unwarranted insults.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
|
On August 14 2007 03:09 rpf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 02:33 Prodigy[x] wrote:
Yeah but I think people disagree with RPF more easily just because they think he's an easy target, which makes them faggots. I think that some enhancements is necessary to automize things but there needs to be a fine line. We've got interceptors building automatically, ok, how about marines that stim and spread automatically too? Or templars storming automatically too? I'm really confident the game will be great but multiple gate selection needs to go. Everyone tells me I'm an easy target. :/ But yeah, if other actions are autocast, like storm or stim, I honestly don't think that can help the game. The great part about BW is that literally nothing is done for you, aside from medics healing, and workers mining (which requires the order to do so in the first place). I agree that there needs to be a line between automation and user input, but I'm not completely sure where that line should be exactly.
It's already been confirmed that autocast will only be available for those abilities that don't require user input to be used properly, eg. medics heal, carriers build interceptors, reavers build scarabs. It would be incredibly difficult for the AI to figure out when and where to use abilities like stim and storm, and would dampen the skill factor involved in using those abilities, so naturally the SC2 team aren't going to make them autocastable.
Also, keep in mind that even if carries autobuild interceptors, or reavers autobuild scarabs, you'll probably still have the option of turning the autobuild off.
The real issue here is multiple building selection. I'm sorry that so many people responded negatively to your blog, but the fact is that we've heard this argument since the idea first arose in one of the first SC2 hypothesis threads, and over this time it's persisted despite so many well-reasoned arguments in defense of multiple building selection. In my opinion, the problem is that far too many people believe that all there is to macro in BW is ordering the building of units, and the rote muscle memory training and hotkey organization required in order to get the interface to do what you want. But macro, again in my opinion (though it is shared by many on TL) involves so much more than the mechanics of building units; expo timing, supply timing, efficient tech tree climbing, etc. To your credit, you've mentioned these factors when providing examples of superior macro play, but you don't seem to have considered that multiple building selection doesn't affect them.
Allowing multiple building selection doesn't cause a drop in the skill level required, it just shifts the emphasis to these other factors. If you blindly build units over and over again and end up running out of supply, or let your opponent gain a big lead in expansions, it is much more decisive a mistake now than it was before, because you will not have the possibility that your opponent is less efficient at clicking buildings and pressing hotkeys than you to save you. And don't you think that superiority in timing and defending your expansions, while keeping your opponent from expanding with you, is more indicative of superior skill than the muscle memory involved in typing 5z6z7z5d6d7d8c9c quickly or developing a hotkey system to organize your macro that is virtually the same every battle?
EDIT: I forgot to also mention the point that if you want to have a good unit mix, or have certain units appear at certain gateways, you're going to have to organize your hotkey system anyway, and likely use more hotkeys than you describe.
I see the mechanics involving in BW macroing as the base of good macro, from which players can branch off into higher concepts like expo timing. All SC2 is doing is giving everyone access to that base, thus emphasizing those higher level skills that require more of the mind, and less of the muscles.
|
On August 14 2007 00:01 Kwark wrote:
Spamming i on carriers isn't actually skill. There's no reason why we should have to do it. The same goes for the vast majority of interface changes.
But what amuses me more than the rest of your inane and entirely wrong ramblings is the "55 APM newbie to a 180 APM Protoss player". Speed doesn't mean shit. Come play me with your 180 apm, I'll meet you with 55 of my own. This game is about relentless strategic analysis of each other and reaction to it. Not hand speed. The less things to do the better the game is.
LOL @ the last sentence
I bet if someone created a game with the best graphics in the world and following this concept for winning:
A>B
B>C
C>A
Itd be the happiest day in your life because you only have to press one button and you can counter people "strategically" after seeing which letter they chose...
Also, I know that APM does not reflect a player's skills 100% accurately but more likely than not, a player with a higher APM by a large amount (50-100) tends to be more skilled. Now this theory is actually very inaccurate when the APM of both players are above 250ish but when one player has 20 apm and another with 120....its most likely the player with 120 is more skilled.
I have to agree somewhat with the blog starter because i am actually quite disappointed with SC2 and the easiness of the macro. The micro is pretty much going to be awesome because of how smooth the game is and how the units respond to every click. Starcraft should not be based mainly on Micro but should have a mixture of both. The difficulty of the game is what made it so popular. Some newb whos never played the game but read a couple of unit counter and BO guides online shouldnt be able to beat an experienced player. Aside from the difficulty, SC2 going to be a pretty kickass game.
Anyways, I truly hope that Blizzard will change the macro and make the game harder.
BTW, accept that people have different opinions and stop flaming the fuck outta this blog.
|
On August 14 2007 06:56 Flying_Llama wrote:
The difficulty of the game is what made it so popular. Some newb whos never played the game but read a couple of unit counter and BO guides online shouldnt be able to beat an experienced player.
I don't think that you'll have anything to fear, since they wouldn't. Even without considering the gap in micro, said "newb" will not scout properly, will let their opponent take a lead in expansions due to no/ineffective harrass, will have trouble adapting to his opponent's strategy or counter-strategy when they finally find out what it is, won't have the sense of timing to take advantage of weak points in their opponent's strategy, and will likely fall apart once their BO is finished. Honestly, if each side is allowed "easier macro", and that alone allows the "newb" to defeat the "experienced player", then I'd say that "newb" is better at SC than the "experienced player" is.
And if you really want people in this thread to stop flaming each other, I'd advise not flaming them yourself in the same post.
|
dudeeeeee. why wouldn't you want stuff that make things easier?
imagine if your English teacher was like, you can't use a computer to type your essays anymore because that's too ez.
or what if the people were like, you can't use robots to make cars any more because that's too ez.
or if the biking people were like, you can't take steroids anymore because that's too ez.
anyways, im going to wait and see what happens i guess.
|
I think the jist of rpf's post is true. Making macro too easy makes the game less competitive in the sense that you don't have to practice your mechanics as much to be good. You don't see people bitching about how the sport of golf should be easier so more people can feel competitive do you? Obviously, there is a line between automation and making things difficult on purpose, but I think SC had a pretty good balance. Also, SC is known for requiring a lot of work, but the people who could achieve those results were revered. The less difficult OVERALL you make the game to play, the less impressive the results seem.
|
it's kind of like how backstroke and butterfly are 2 different swimming events. obviously, using butterfly, you'll swim faster and easier and rape someone using backstroke...but both are good and valid. there's no point in trying to make backstroke2.
|
On August 14 2007 09:32 geometryb wrote:
it's kind of like how backstroke and butterfly are 2 different swimming events. obviously, using butterfly, you'll swim faster and easier and rape someone using backstroke...but both are good and valid. there's no point in trying to make backstroke2.
yea, i completely agree with everything you're saying. there's no reason to make sc2 exactly the same as bw. it will become something related, but unique. kind of like walking(it's a sport lol) vs running.
|
On August 14 2007 09:38 geometryb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 09:32 geometryb wrote:
it's kind of like how backstroke and butterfly are 2 different swimming events. obviously, using butterfly, you'll swim faster and easier and rape someone using backstroke...but both are good and valid. there's no point in trying to make backstroke2. yea, i completely agree with everything you're saying. there's no reason to make sc2 exactly the same as bw. it will become something related, but unique. kind of like walking(it's a sport lol) vs running.
no, i disagree. it would completely destroy the game. it's more like nascar--just a bunch of skill-less weirdos driving around in circles. there's not going to be any real competition
|
On August 14 2007 09:56 geometryb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 09:38 geometryb wrote:On August 14 2007 09:32 geometryb wrote:
it's kind of like how backstroke and butterfly are 2 different swimming events. obviously, using butterfly, you'll swim faster and easier and rape someone using backstroke...but both are good and valid. there's no point in trying to make backstroke2. yea, i completely agree with everything you're saying. there's no reason to make sc2 exactly the same as bw. it will become something related, but unique. kind of like walking(it's a sport lol) vs running. no, i disagree. it would completely destroy the game. it's more like nascar--just a bunch of skill-less weirdos driving around in circles. there's not going to be any real competition
well, games shouldn't be made with competition in mind. it should start out as something fun and if it's good, it's up to the players to decide whether it can become that way.
|
On August 14 2007 09:58 geometryb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 09:56 geometryb wrote:On August 14 2007 09:38 geometryb wrote:On August 14 2007 09:32 geometryb wrote:
it's kind of like how backstroke and butterfly are 2 different swimming events. obviously, using butterfly, you'll swim faster and easier and rape someone using backstroke...but both are good and valid. there's no point in trying to make backstroke2. yea, i completely agree with everything you're saying. there's no reason to make sc2 exactly the same as bw. it will become something related, but unique. kind of like walking(it's a sport lol) vs running. no, i disagree. it would completely destroy the game. it's more like nascar--just a bunch of skill-less weirdos driving around in circles. there's not going to be any real competition well, games shouldn't be made with competition in mind. it should start out as something fun and if it's good, it's up to the players to decide whether it can become that way.
you're twisting my words. what i meant was, there will be no way to distinguish between great players and good players--anyone could beat anyone else any day of the week.
|
On August 14 2007 10:01 geometryb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 09:58 geometryb wrote:On August 14 2007 09:56 geometryb wrote:On August 14 2007 09:38 geometryb wrote:On August 14 2007 09:32 geometryb wrote:
it's kind of like how backstroke and butterfly are 2 different swimming events. obviously, using butterfly, you'll swim faster and easier and rape someone using backstroke...but both are good and valid. there's no point in trying to make backstroke2. yea, i completely agree with everything you're saying. there's no reason to make sc2 exactly the same as bw. it will become something related, but unique. kind of like walking(it's a sport lol) vs running. no, i disagree. it would completely destroy the game. it's more like nascar--just a bunch of skill-less weirdos driving around in circles. there's not going to be any real competition well, games shouldn't be made with competition in mind. it should start out as something fun and if it's good, it's up to the players to decide whether it can become that way. you're twisting my words. what i meant was, there will be no way to distinguish between great players and good players--anyone could beat anyone else any day of the week.
well, considering that all the pro's already have near perfect macro and micro...your argument fails completely. they distinguish themselves with better "sense" and builds. macro can only differentiate between lower tier players, who would lose to the truly good players anyways.
|
On August 14 2007 10:04 geometryb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 10:01 geometryb wrote:On August 14 2007 09:58 geometryb wrote:On August 14 2007 09:56 geometryb wrote:On August 14 2007 09:38 geometryb wrote:On August 14 2007 09:32 geometryb wrote:
it's kind of like how backstroke and butterfly are 2 different swimming events. obviously, using butterfly, you'll swim faster and easier and rape someone using backstroke...but both are good and valid. there's no point in trying to make backstroke2. yea, i completely agree with everything you're saying. there's no reason to make sc2 exactly the same as bw. it will become something related, but unique. kind of like walking(it's a sport lol) vs running. no, i disagree. it would completely destroy the game. it's more like nascar--just a bunch of skill-less weirdos driving around in circles. there's not going to be any real competition well, games shouldn't be made with competition in mind. it should start out as something fun and if it's good, it's up to the players to decide whether it can become that way. you're twisting my words. what i meant was, there will be no way to distinguish between great players and good players--anyone could beat anyone else any day of the week. well, considering that all the pro's already have near perfect macro and micro...your argument fails completely. they distinguish themselves with better "sense" and builds. macro can only differentiate between lower tier players, who would lose to the truly good players anyways.
true, but Blizzard would be removing one of the truly amazing aspects of BW. One of the reasons i enjoy watching those games is because of the multi-task ability of the pro's, something that not everyone has and is kind of special. If Blizzard were to remove that, it would ruin pro-gaming because it would be almost entirely strat based and less skill based. i don't want to see things that are done easily. yes, strats are an important element in the game, but so is macro and micro. removing macro would remove the "specialness" of large armies and such.
|
On August 14 2007 10:09 geometryb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 10:04 geometryb wrote:On August 14 2007 10:01 geometryb wrote:On August 14 2007 09:58 geometryb wrote:On August 14 2007 09:56 geometryb wrote:On August 14 2007 09:38 geometryb wrote:On August 14 2007 09:32 geometryb wrote:
it's kind of like how backstroke and butterfly are 2 different swimming events. obviously, using butterfly, you'll swim faster and easier and rape someone using backstroke...but both are good and valid. there's no point in trying to make backstroke2. yea, i completely agree with everything you're saying. there's no reason to make sc2 exactly the same as bw. it will become something related, but unique. kind of like walking(it's a sport lol) vs running. no, i disagree. it would completely destroy the game. it's more like nascar--just a bunch of skill-less weirdos driving around in circles. there's not going to be any real competition well, games shouldn't be made with competition in mind. it should start out as something fun and if it's good, it's up to the players to decide whether it can become that way. you're twisting my words. what i meant was, there will be no way to distinguish between great players and good players--anyone could beat anyone else any day of the week. well, considering that all the pro's already have near perfect macro and micro...your argument fails completely. they distinguish themselves with better "sense" and builds. macro can only differentiate between lower tier players, who would lose to the truly good players anyways. true, but Blizzard would be removing one of the truly amazing aspects of BW. One of the reasons i enjoy watching those games is because of the multi-task ability of the pro's, something that not everyone has and is kind of special. If Blizzard were to remove that, it would ruin pro-gaming because it would be almost entirely strat based and less skill based. i don't want to see things that are done easily. yes, strats are an important element in the game, but so is macro and micro. removing macro would remove the "specialness" of large armies and such.
u r stupid. u don't understand anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
