|
On August 14 2007 10:16 geometryb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 10:09 geometryb wrote: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.
fuck you asshole. im 100 times more successful than you'll ever be.
|
On August 14 2007 10:17 geometryb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 10:16 geometryb wrote:On August 14 2007 10:09 geometryb wrote: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. fuck you asshole. im 100 times more successful than you'll ever be.
trying to talk to someone as crude and ignorant as you are is a waste of time. i don't know why i bother.
|
On August 14 2007 09:01 A3iL3r0n wrote:
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.
I don't think that it makes the game less competitive, it just shifts the areas in which you have to focus your training in order to be good away from the physical mechanics and more towards the mental strategies and adaptations. It will still require an impressive level of skill in order to compete, just with more emphasis on the "outthinking, novel strategies, and adaptation" side than the "fingers dancing over the keyboard" side. We admire Go and Chess masters for their mental abilities, just as we admire golf pros for their physical abilities, and both Go and Chess are highly competitive games. I don't think you're accounting for the emergence in the mental game that will arise from somewhat relaxing the physical barrier required for competitive play.
However, if you are right, a split like this would actually be a good thing for the continued existence of BW progaming, as audiences would continue to watch BW because of the physical skills exhibited. It would also be good for the progamers in general, as older pros who would lose their competitive strength in BW due to the deterioration in their physical skills could move on to SC2, where their mental skills would still be effective but their physical burden lessened.
|
United States37500 Posts
I can't help but kinda chuckle while reading all the comments and granted I know that rpf is the writer here. intrigue, while being abrasive like hell, echoes my opinions and responses to your blog. I find a number of your opinions ignorant so I'll address them in hopes you can better explain yourself or refute my argument.
On August 13 2007 23:18 rpf wrote:
Ignorance is bliss. The more and more I read about SC2, and how it's currently developing, I get more and more concerned. Now, I understand that Blizzard is still a business, and that their target audience, clearly, is not the competitive gaming community.
I'm not sure how wrong you can start off your blog. Are you inferring that Blizzard is being blissfully ignorant here? Blizzard is indeed a company in the gaming industry aiming to make as much money as possible. But I doubt making money is the sole aim. Blizzard is a franchise that is in the market for creating quality games. We all love StarCraft: BroodWar. And even if our site dislikes a number of other Blizzard games like WC3 and WoW, those games still have an immense gaming base.
I would say Blizzard's target is to build an excellent game that creates a solid foundation of patrons and consumers that will continue to come back each time they release a new game. A competitive gaming community spawns from a good, solid game, not the other way around. It's baseless to assume that any gaming company ships out a game with the intention that their game is going to be the cornerstone of e-Sports.
Blizzard understands that they stand to make more money if SC2 is shipped "easymode," as I'll call it. 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.
"easymode", a term you so creatively coined is barely the pre-alpha stage of SC2. Yes you can bind multiple buildings together but in no way does that mean you will be able to macro impeccably.
Afaik, they have not implemented autocast on anything critical or game altering. Spamming 'i' five time to queue interceptors is not the making of a good player. Taking something out that mundane isn't a loss.
I guess I can't really ask why they're doing this. Like I said, they aren't building SC2 for a smaller target audience; they're building it for the largest target audience possible. From a business standpoint, I can't argue with that. If I was in charge at Blizzard, I'd do the same thing.
But as a player, and a player who enjoys the competition, I can't respect the game. It's the same reason why I have less respect for WC3 than for BW. WC3 has little macro compared to BW, and the macro that does exist is quite easy. You can just hotkey the same types of building together, and then just press one key and suddenly you've made a lot of units.
That is just narrow-minded. In short, you're saying because macro is easy, you aren't going to respect the game. As if macro is the only aspect of the game. You truncate something down from 5z6z7z8z down to 5z, it saves you an extra 3 seconds to be doing something else with your actions. It doesn't necessarily take away from the overall game play.
Your comparison between BW and WC3 is utterly baseless. They are two different games. WC3 units are more expensive, more hp, take up more food, do less dps than SC units and most importantly, there is the concept of upkeep. When there is that much difference in the macro and unit specs, you aren't going to be able to equally compare the two.
Now, let's say BW were to implement some of these functions. In late game PvT, when I have between 20 and 30 gateways depending on various factors, as well as four stargates for carriers.
Now, in BW as it is now, I use keys 1-4 for units, 5-7 for gateways, and 8-0 for nexuses. But, in the new, hypothetical BW, it'd be more like, 1-7 for units (hah), 8 for gateways, 9 for stargates, and 0 for my nexuses. So now when I want to macro, I go 8zd9c. Hell, I don't even have to stop to make interceptors.
Part of the fun of BW is that I'm not fast enough to macro, not fast enough to micro, and that it took almost two years for me to go from a 55 APM newbie to a 180 APM Protoss player. I may not be a known, or active player any longer, nor am I anything special, but I still earned that 180 APM. 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.
This is probably the most whiny part of your entire blog. You dumbed things down so far that you make the game itself sound so basic. What is to say that the slower, more newbie player will have the same economy or micro as a more experienced player. 5z'ing 10 gateways is only cool if you have the 2 bases and saturated min lines to feed those gateways.
Congrats on your 180 apm, but honestly that doesn't mean jack. Oldy with his 90 apm will still trounce you every game. You earned a 180 apm that has absolutely no meaning with other skills to back it up.
By the way, just to emphasize how much you are blindly raving, you can only get three heroes max in WC3. The game doesn't revolve around just micro'ing your heroes. If you want to make comparisons, at least be educated enough to make such distinctions between the two things. I don't have much doubt that you are one of those SC purists that played WC, found it's nothing like SC with all its "gimmicky" UI advantages and uninstalled the game.
Anyone ever watched a good Tempest)is( replay? His macro is immaculate. See, in BW, that means something. He times his pylons perfectly all game so that he can constantly make more and more units as his economic income increase exponentially because he never stops making probes, and always expands when it is safe to do so. The moment one unit comes out of a gateway, he immediately makes another. It's because he's skilled, and has the hand speed and attention to detail to be able to do that. In SC2, it won't matter. You'll press three buttons, and make an entire army.
Thanks Blizzard.
You just named the single most macro intensive player you could think of. G.s)Kyo and Inter.Mind. Look I listed two more. But notice how none of these three players have made their mark on the proscene. Brute handspeed and impeccable unit queuing time is respectable but that isn't what makes a good player good.
The biggest gripe you have with all the things you have seen about SC2 is the macro, and look, I even had issues against it at first too. But the thing is, that change alone won't make SC2 any worse than SC1. Koreans will still have that sickening 400 APM. It's just that speed and attention can be spent on controlling their armies better or planning out better strategies. By no means will it ruin the game.
|
lolol way to hijack
and rpf, I want to know how you should respond to those questions as well.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
personally i agree with rpf about the importance of the physical aspects of having to multitask everything in sc instead of focusing more on the 'strategy' and shit of the game.
and progamers do not all have near perfect macro, why would players like bisu/ oov/ nada/savior have macro that outshines other players? ;\
|
Damnit. 300APM was the only thing keeping me fit, what will I do now
|
On August 14 2007 10:21 NeoIllusions wrote:
I'm not sure how wrong you can start off your blog. Are you inferring that Blizzard is being blissfully ignorant here? No, I'm implying I was happier ignoring all of the SC2 information. But, I got bored and started looking at different things, and saw screenshots of autocasted abilities, and saw someone say something about how you can hotkey buildings together.
On August 14 2007 10:21 NeoIllusions wrote:
Blizzard is indeed a company in the gaming industry aiming to make as much money as possible. But I doubt making money is the sole aim. Blizzard is a franchise that is in the market for creating quality games. We all love StarCraft: BroodWar. And even if our site dislikes a number of other Blizzard games like WC3 and WoW, those games still have an immense gaming base. I have to agree. I think it was a little short-sighted of me to assume that Blizzard doesn't care about the competitive gaming community.
On August 14 2007 10:21 NeoIllusions wrote:
I would say Blizzard's target is to build an excellent game that creates a solid foundation of patrons and consumers that will continue to come back each time they release a new game. A competitive gaming community spawns from a good, solid game, not the other way around. It's baseless to assume that any gaming company ships out a game with the intention that their game is going to be the cornerstone of e-Sports. I think I was wrong implying they should ship the game intended for competition.
On August 14 2007 10:21 NeoIllusions wrote:
"easymode", a term you so creatively coined is barely the pre-alpha stage of SC2. Yes you can bind multiple buildings together but in no way does that mean you will be able to macro impeccably. So because a game is in its pre=alpha stage I can't shares my thoughts on its current state?
On August 14 2007 10:21 NeoIllusions wrote:
Afaik, they have not implemented autocast on anything critical or game altering. Spamming 'i' five time to queue interceptors is not the making of a good player. Taking something out that mundane isn't a loss. You make a great point. Having interceptors being built by autocast isn't going to "ruin" the game; but like I said I don't like having anything being done for me. It's the principal, not the actual action itself.
On August 14 2007 10:21 NeoIllusions wrote:
That is just narrow-minded. In short, you're saying because macro is easy, you aren't going to respect the game. As if macro is the only aspect of the game. You truncate something down from 5z6z7z8z down to 5z, it saves you an extra 3 seconds to be doing something else with your actions. It doesn't necessarily take away from the overall game play. You're simplifying what I said, and generalizing too much. I will still respect the game, but will no longer acknowledge someone's incredible macro (i.e. Tempest, and those you mention farther down in this post). It will be a bit easier to macro if SC2 allows multiple buildings to be hotkeyed together. I recognize it won't somehow destroy the game, but it does remove the aspect of needing to be "good" at macro. For example, PvP is largely considered to be a macro matchup. So, usually, the player who was better at macro, i.e. the player who was faster, who was capable of timing pylons, and so on, usually was the victor. Of course having macro being a little easier isn't a bad thing in terms of gameplay, but I'd still personally prefer that buildings can't be hotkeyed together.
On August 14 2007 10:21 NeoIllusions wrote:
Your comparison between BW and WC3 is utterly baseless. They are two different games. WC3 units are more expensive, more hp, take up more food, do less dps than SC units and most importantly, there is the concept of upkeep. When there is that much difference in the macro and unit specs, you aren't going to be able to equally compare the two. I guess I can't argue against those points.
On August 14 2007 10:21 NeoIllusions wrote:
This is probably the most whiny part of your entire blog. You dumbed things down so far that you make the game itself sound so basic. What is to say that the slower, more newbie player will have the same economy or micro as a more experienced player. 5z'ing 10 gateways is only cool if you have the 2 bases and saturated min lines to feed those gateways.
On August 14 2007 10:21 NeoIllusions wrote:
Congrats on your 180 apm, but honestly that doesn't mean jack. Oldy with his 90 apm will still trounce you every game. You earned a 180 apm that has absolutely no meaning with other skills to back it up. Actually, it does mean something, seeing as it took me two years to develop that handspeed. My time isn't worthless, nor was my dedication or love of BW. We've been through the "APM doesn't imply skill" thing numerous times in this thread.
On August 14 2007 10:21 NeoIllusions wrote:
By the way, just to emphasize how much you are blindly raving, you can only get three heroes max in WC3. The game doesn't revolve around just micro'ing your heroes. If you want to make comparisons, at least be educated enough to make such distinctions between the two things. I don't have much doubt that you are one of those SC purists that played WC, found it's nothing like SC with all its "gimmicky" UI advantages and uninstalled the game. Actually, I never uninstalled it. I just never found the melee play to be enthralling. I actually found it quite boring, and it didn't live up to my expectations. It's just personal preference.
On August 14 2007 10:21 NeoIllusions wrote:
You just named the single most macro intensive player you could think of. G.s)Kyo and Inter.Mind. Look I listed two more. But notice how none of these three players have made their mark on the proscene. Brute handspeed and impeccable unit queuing time is respectable but that isn't what makes a good player good. I agree that handspeed doesn't make a player good. Obviously a player's ability to make decisions and apply strategies is important, but you can't deny that Tempest's macro is impressive. In SC2, if there is the ability to hotkey multiple buildings together, I think it could detract some from the "Wow, look at his macro," factor.
On August 14 2007 10:21 NeoIllusions wrote:
The biggest gripe you have with all the things you have seen about SC2 is the macro, and look, I even had issues against it at first too. But the thing is, that change alone won't make SC2 any worse than SC1. Koreans will still have that sickening 400 APM. It's just that speed and attention can be spent on controlling their armies better or planning out better strategies. By no means will it ruin the game. I think you're right.
Edit: I want to thank you for remaining civil, and responding with some intelligent points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
