|
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
 
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
On August 13 2007 23:18 rpf wrote:
Ignorance is bliss.
yes it is. you don't know anything about the gameplay yet, stop bitching already.
|
Don't comment, then. It's simply commentary on the game's current phase of development. Sorry for having my own opinions and not having them agree with yours. 
|
This isnt SC:BW. Those things are the beauty of BW, But SC2 isnt BW. Get over it, Things will be different. if you want it to be hard to macro, lose one of your hands.
|
You are fucking retarded, I hope it hurts to be you
|
people don't seem to like your blog entry rpf. but i have the same feelings =P
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
not only do i disagree with them, they are completely uninformed you self-righteous prick
do you honestly think blizzard is going to make a shitty game after every single tlnet member at blizzcon gave raving reviews to the blizzard staff, the game as revealed, and the vision of starcraft that was presented? do you think that blizzard, who has shown massive effort in the past few months in communicating with the starcraft scene that they clearly respect, will ignore the widespread concerns of 'easy macro?' notice the delay time between when the fans complained and the soulhunter was removed + siege tank was redesigned. if blizzard is still intentionally going with the macro as it is, there must be a reason for it.
oh fuck it i'm just going to use old quotes from an sc2 thread that i wrote for another moron like you
the entire possibility of new mechanics or gameplay is lost on you guys, isn't it? blizzard isn't stupid, and by trivializing things that were so important in the original, they seem to be saying that there will be new things to think about, more strategy, more things to master and elements to discover.
stop complaining and give it a chance. what the fuck do you want, just another starcraft with fancier graphics? nothing they've done so far or aim at will 'ruin' the game.
god you guys are idiots =(
starcraft 2 is in the hands of one of the most successful gaming companies in history, the one that created the game on which you spend hours playing and posting on forums about, the one that has proudly described its express desire to create a 'competitive, fast-paced game' that will not disappoint starcraft fans, and the one that has released fifteen patches regularly for a ten-year-old game, following closely korean progaming and fan complaints. you have to be either completely insulting, ignorant, or incredibly short-sighted to not have a pretty solid faith in blizzard.
warcraft, wow, diablo, bw - having so many resounding successes in a row is not a fluke, and is only a testament to the company's quality control.
to be honest i think you really won't listen to whatever i have to say, it's always easier just sitting back and pretending your little theorycrafting and assumptions hold any ground at all
by the way you're a smug motherfucker, you know that?
|
Edit: Nevermind. I should have known better than to have my own opinion. I am so very sorry if my difference of opinion somehow offended you.
|
Although I am reluctant to settle on an opinion on SC2 at this time (for all the obvious reasons), some developments do actually worry me. Above all, I cannot embrace the blind faith that so many people seem to have in Blizzard.
|
On August 13 2007 23:58 rpf wrote:
Ah, gotta love it when people don't agree. It automatically makes you a dumbass.
I respectfully disagree with you intrigue. I would call you an asshole for not agreeing with me, but I'm not you.
People are disagreeing BECAUSE you're a dumbass.
|
I agree with you rpf the people that don't agree obviously have no skill at starcraft broodwar therefore want a dumbed down interface so they have a chance....all the tl.net members that went to blizzcon all said that the macro in sc2 was insanely too e-z so from there view you are correct as well....this was a good read
|
United States42179 Posts
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.
|
On August 14 2007 00:00 Woyn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2007 23:58 rpf wrote:
Ah, gotta love it when people don't agree. It automatically makes you a dumbass.
I respectfully disagree with you intrigue. I would call you an asshole for not agreeing with me, but I'm not you. People are disagreeing BECAUSE you're a dumbass. Yup, that's why. It couldn't possibly be the stubborn human reaction afforded by the anonymity of the internet to automatically shun those who disagree.
Yup, I'm the dumbass. Me. Not you. Good thinking.
|
United States42179 Posts
On August 14 2007 00:01 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:
I agree with you rpf the people that don't agree obviously have no skill at starcraft broodwar therefore want a dumbed down interface so they have a chance....all the tl.net members that went to blizzcon all said that the macro in sc2 was insanely too e-z so from there view you are correct as well....this was a good read
I'm like 95% sure you're being sarcastic but wanted to check.
|
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 00:03 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 00:01 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:
I agree with you rpf the people that don't agree obviously have no skill at starcraft broodwar therefore want a dumbed down interface so they have a chance....all the tl.net members that went to blizzcon all said that the macro in sc2 was insanely too e-z so from there view you are correct as well....this was a good read I'm like 95% sure you're being sarcastic but wanted to check.
nope....and if apm means nothing why is it nearly every pro has at least 200 apm? this isnt because they dont need it
|
Speed and general skill are correlated; however one does not prove causation.
|
On August 14 2007 00:01 Kwark wrote:
Come play me with your 180 apm, I'll meet you with 55 of my own.
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 00:06 rpf wrote:
Speed and general skill are correlated; however one does not prove causation.
Speed may increase with skill but speed doesn't make you skilled.
|
That's what I just said.
Edit: Sorry, I didn't notice you were putting things in layman's terms for intrigue.
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
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 00:10 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
how in the crap did he "insult everyone's intelligence"?? i believe you were the one you who so eliquently said he was a "completely uninformed self-righteous prick"...i'd say that was insulting his intelligence
|
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?
|
United States42179 Posts
On August 14 2007 00:05 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 00:03 Kwark wrote:On August 14 2007 00:01 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:
I agree with you rpf the people that don't agree obviously have no skill at starcraft broodwar therefore want a dumbed down interface so they have a chance....all the tl.net members that went to blizzcon all said that the macro in sc2 was insanely too e-z so from there view you are correct as well....this was a good read I'm like 95% sure you're being sarcastic but wanted to check. nope....and if apm means nothing why is it nearly every pro has at least 200 apm? this isnt because they dont need it
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 00:18 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 00:05 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:On August 14 2007 00:03 Kwark wrote:On August 14 2007 00:01 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:
I agree with you rpf the people that don't agree obviously have no skill at starcraft broodwar therefore want a dumbed down interface so they have a chance....all the tl.net members that went to blizzcon all said that the macro in sc2 was insanely too e-z so from there view you are correct as well....this was a good read I'm like 95% sure you're being sarcastic but wanted to check. nope....and if apm means nothing why is it nearly every pro has at least 200 apm? this isnt because they dont need it 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.
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
|
United States42179 Posts
On August 14 2007 00:06 H_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 00:01 Kwark wrote:
Come play me with your 180 apm, I'll meet you with 55 of my own. 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.
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 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 00:06 H_ wrote:On August 14 2007 00:01 Kwark wrote:
Come play me with your 180 apm, I'll meet you with 55 of my own. 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. 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.
now come on let's be honest....its not simply *mass units/attack move* you know that
|
Having high APM doesn't mean that you're good. It just means you're not new. I mean, seriously, how often do you play a new player with more than 100 APM? Speed increases as you play, but doesn't mean that you're good because you have higher APM.
Debating APM is rather pointless. It's insignificant in the long run. What matters is whether or not you're fast enough to appropriately apply micro, macro, and strategy.
|
United States42179 Posts
On August 14 2007 00:22 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 00:18 Kwark wrote:On August 14 2007 00:05 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:On August 14 2007 00:03 Kwark wrote:On August 14 2007 00:01 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:
I agree with you rpf the people that don't agree obviously have no skill at starcraft broodwar therefore want a dumbed down interface so they have a chance....all the tl.net members that went to blizzcon all said that the macro in sc2 was insanely too e-z so from there view you are correct as well....this was a good read I'm like 95% sure you're being sarcastic but wanted to check. nope....and if apm means nothing why is it nearly every pro has at least 200 apm? this isnt because they dont need it 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. 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
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.
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
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?
i already posted them, and if you are going to be cute and ignore them simply 'the logic behind [me] disagreeing is inherently flawed" you and i both know it is a cheap cop-out, and i really won't mind.
i am disagreeing because your initial post is terribly narrowminded and short-sighted. it's not something where i can go 'oh that's something i don't believe is true but may hold water,' it's a post where i think 'oh jesus christ this guy has not considered anything deeply and is going to make a fool out of himself.'
you are not making subjective opinions (which even still are never completely free from critique) when you say things like
- 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./
where does the expo timing come in leading into an economic boom factor in? build orders? how do you control unit mix? how do you plan on surviving to late game against an evenly skilled opponent in order to use this easy macro system? how are you going to win if everyone can macro?
- 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.
is "400 apm macro" all about being able to produce off of gateways constantly? will automatic control be anywhere as good as manual unit mix, if you are fast enough?
do you honestly believe an rts will be ruined if the macro emphasis is lowered and the strategy-side is increased? it's not necessarily a good thing that a player can get to C+ on macro alone with little or no 'strategy.' i am aware that there were concerns of what you are talking about, but a. do they 'ruin' the game outside of the traditional brood war sense? and b. will blizzard 'fix' it? are huge unknowns that you have not even considered before your long rant.
are you going to address my first post or not
|
On August 14 2007 00:29 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 00:22 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:On August 14 2007 00:18 Kwark wrote:On August 14 2007 00:05 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:On August 14 2007 00:03 Kwark wrote:On August 14 2007 00:01 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:
I agree with you rpf the people that don't agree obviously have no skill at starcraft broodwar therefore want a dumbed down interface so they have a chance....all the tl.net members that went to blizzcon all said that the macro in sc2 was insanely too e-z so from there view you are correct as well....this was a good read I'm like 95% sure you're being sarcastic but wanted to check. nope....and if apm means nothing why is it nearly every pro has at least 200 apm? this isnt because they dont need it 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. 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 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.
heh i see your point with the interceptor auto-cast...and this really doesnt bother me since you can turn it off...I was speaking more of the gateway multi-select it seems to me by adding this feature one key element of original sc has been lost to make it easier for a new player, i realize that multi-select is in like all new RTS's but it just hurts starcraft since now every minute you can build 10 zealots build 3 probes and not even have to send probes to mine (since probes auto-mine) this is obviously just my oppinion and it may be because i am so used to it but timing your building of probes and units + sending your probes to minerals at a constant rate seems like a skill that is too valuable to be lost just because many players do not have the apm to do this while still microing properly (again just an oppinion)
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
|
On August 14 2007 00:29 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2007 00:22 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:On August 14 2007 00:18 Kwark wrote:On August 14 2007 00:05 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:On August 14 2007 00:03 Kwark wrote:On August 14 2007 00:01 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:
I agree with you rpf the people that don't agree obviously have no skill at starcraft broodwar therefore want a dumbed down interface so they have a chance....all the tl.net members that went to blizzcon all said that the macro in sc2 was insanely too e-z so from there view you are correct as well....this was a good read I'm like 95% sure you're being sarcastic but wanted to check. nope....and if apm means nothing why is it nearly every pro has at least 200 apm? this isnt because they dont need it 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. 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 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.
also the game i remember was where you went super fast robo- and i countered with 2 gate goon expo you remember that one? it wasnt that long ago maybe 3 weeks or something
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On August 14 2007 00:32 intrigue wrote:
are you going to address my first post or not No. You've proven yourself to be consistently rude, and close-minded. I have no respect for those who fail to see that I'm entitled to my own opinions, and it doesn't matter if you like them, dislike them, agree with them, or disagree with them. I would lecture you on maturity and civility, but those are values you should have picked up along the way.
You spent more time quoting previous posts directed at "morons like me" than actually responding to the points I made, so no, I will not be responding to your posts. Besides, if I'm such a "smug motherfucker," why would I feel the need to prove anything to you?
I think it would benefit you greatly to listen to Kwark. He's capable of making points and counter-points using logic instead of profanity and insults.
|
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 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.
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.
|
On August 14 2007 03:00 A3iL3r0n wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
exactly...it's not just they are able to cycle through buildings to build units it that they can do this while microing/expanding/correct timing on attacks/defending/unit choice...macroing units in this way is just as important as any of those others listed imo and taking it out is taking away one skill that seperates amateurs from pros
|
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.C9933 Posts
|
I don't care about multi-building selection, but what about smart casting? What do you think about that Kwark?
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 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.
|
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
