EPTOn May 21 2005 10:04 BinaryStar wrote:
Oh, because currently SC requires no actual thinking!
Oh, because currently SC requires no actual thinking!
Way to miss my point, idiot. Remember, the order to do things is: Read -> Comprehend -> Post.
If starcraft 2 only changed the interface.... - Page 6
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
gravity
Australia1734 Posts
Way to miss my point, idiot. Remember, the order to do things is: Read -> Comprehend -> Post. | ||
|
hixhix
1156 Posts
| ||
|
BinaryStar
Afghanistan669 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:05 gravity wrote: *I'm* blind? Last I heard I was still posting coherently, not spamming in a retarded attempt to distract from the a lack of relevant arguments. Oh yeah, and cliches aren't arguments. Yes, yes you are blind. Posting coherently has nothing to do with it, if you fail to see the idiocy of your ideas. | ||
|
gravity
Australia1734 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:06 hixhix wrote: in short, newbish and lazy gamers like the changes. better gamers feel the changes stupid. end of discussion "Better" gamers have a vested interest in not changing anything (because they have the most to potentially lose if they're not as good at the new system as the old one), so of course they don't want to. That doesn't meant the game wouldn't be much better for it. | ||
|
gravity
Australia1734 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:07 BinaryStar wrote: Yes, yes you are blind. Posting coherently has nothing to do with it, if you fail to see the idiocy of your ideas. I do indeed fail to see any "idiocy" in my ideas, so do you have any actual logical arguments rather than insults? | ||
|
BinaryStar
Afghanistan669 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:08 gravity wrote: "Better" gamers have a vested interest in not chaning anything (because they have the most to potentially lose if they're not as good at the new system as the old one), so of course they don't want to. That doesn't meant the game wouldn't be much better for it. And shitty gamers like you have a vested interested in changing everything (because you have the most to potentially gain if you're not as terrible at the new system as the old one), so of course you want to. That doesn't mean that the game would be much better for it. | ||
|
BinaryStar
Afghanistan669 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:09 gravity wrote: I do indeed fail to see any "idiocy" in my ideas, so do you have any actual logical arguments rather than insults? It's perfectly logical to call something idiotioc, idiocy. | ||
|
BinaryStar
Afghanistan669 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:06 gravity wrote: Way to miss my point, idiot. Remember, the order to do things is: Read -> Comprehend -> Post. My apologies! Next time I will not interpret what you said in a logical way! | ||
|
radiaL
Andorra2690 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:03 gravity wrote: Besides, even if you were right, you'd still be wrong bahaha holy shit im saving this | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2537 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:03 gravity wrote: You could do Boxer micro after 3 months of training? I seriously doubt it. Besides, there is a lot more to SC than microing and macroing at the same time, which is what you seem to be missing. I can't believe how easy you think SC is, as if the interface is the only thing holding you back from being a progamer. That's pretty laughable. Besides, even if you were right, you'd still be wrong, since people will come along who couldn't play the game before due to not clicking fast enough, but who will be better at strategy/timing/intution than you ever will be, and hence will own you just as hard as Boxer would now. Let's see one of Boxer's micro tricks: killing a lurker with just one marine. I only needed 6 hours of practice to be able to do it consistently. Another boxer trick? Cloning what was it, 8 ghosts to lock down battlecruisers? You wanted to remove that now, didn't you? It wouldn't be an impressive thing to see with your changes, now would it? I don't need to become progamer level to master a game. If somebody who has better strategy/timing/intuition comes along and owns me, still doesn't mean that i haven't mastered the game, reread my defintion of mastering a game please. | ||
|
gravity
Australia1734 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:09 BinaryStar wrote: And shitty gamers like you have a vested interested in changing everything (because you have the most to potentially gain if you're not as terrible at the new system as the old one), so of course you want to. That doesn't mean that the game would be much better for it. You are correct, but I am arguing that the game *would* be better for it (not that it is *necessarily* so). Your objection doesn't counter my point, which was that the objections of "good" players don't mean anything in themselves; only logical arguments and real-world results count (and no, other games with better interfaces are not good real-world results, as their mechanics and balance are far too different from SC, interface aside). | ||
|
hixhix
1156 Posts
| ||
|
gravity
Australia1734 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:11 hixhix wrote: sorry, I cant argue with a newbie who think he masters all the aspects of the game. I'm so lost. *cry* Are you refering to me? If so I don't understand, _Ender was the one claiming he could easily beat progamers with a few interface tweaks, not me. I realize that I would still get owned by anyone good, but I would have more fun doing it and be more likely to be able to do interesting strategies. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2510 Posts
On May 21 2005 09:33 Tal wrote: No I don't realise or agree that d-web being hard to use is part of balance. IIRC the SC makers initially expected the game to be played on fast instead of fastest, which kind of suggests that they thought fastest would be too fast to use all the abilities properly etc. They were right. But you do realise how incredibly fucking imbalanced smart casted d-webs or storms would be, rigth? Hell, I'm not gosu or anything but I could decimate ANY zerg force with 6 full templars + smart cast. T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* T *click* (under span of 5 seconds) All zerg forces are dead. Zerg: ... Me: HAHAHAHA PWNZED YOU FUCKING NOOB AHAHAHAHAHA! People only bring about 4 templars they intend to use with their army. Why? Because templars are so inherently hard to use that getting of more than 6 good storms in a figth is nigh on impossible for even good gamers. Also, what is harder, storm casting with smart cast system or hydra dodging your entire army? One changes with your "uber fix" the other one doesn't. Should we add automicroed hydras as well to keep the balance? I suggest you go compare WCIII's spell casters with SC's spellcasters and check how powerfull the spells are in comparison, and THEN tell me that it being so hard to cast doesn't have anything to do with balance. Of course, we could just change all the spells at the same time we are noobing down the system while were at it... I mean, that's the goal rigth, to make the game accesible to new players? Not having a system that rewards you for skill. | ||
|
gravity
Australia1734 Posts
?? It makes perfect sense in context and is a fairly common rhetorical phrase. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2537 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:11 hixhix wrote: sorry, I cant argue with a newbie who think he masters all the aspects of the game. I'm so lost. *cry* reread my definition of "mastering a game" one more time. | ||
|
gravity
Australia1734 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:14 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: But you do realise how incredibly fucking imbalanced smart casted d-webs or storms would be, rigth? If having a good interface leads to certain imbalances, adjust the balance, don't cripple the interface. Shitting up the interface just to avoid tweaking a few numbers seems pretty ass-backwards to me. | ||
|
BinaryStar
Afghanistan669 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:11 gravity wrote: You are correct, but I am arguing that the game *would* be better for it (not that it is *necessarily* so). Your objection doesn't counter my point, which was that the objections of "good" players don't mean anything in themselves; only logical arguments and real-world results count (and no, other games with better interfaces are not good real-world results, as their mechanics and balance are far too different from SC, interface aside). And I'm saying that it won't. It's not something that can be logically or objectively argued. It's subjective, dipshit. Your arguments are only logical according to your subjective mindset. You seem to think that having less (common) things to do will make the game more interesting. Everyone else disagrees. How the hell are you going to have an objective, logical argument about something when everyone else subjectively disagrees with your premises? | ||
|
radiaL
Andorra2690 Posts
you are worse than ovazio congradulations! | ||
|
gravity
Australia1734 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:16 BinaryStar wrote: And I'm saying that it won't. It's not something that can be logically or objectively argued. It's subjective, dipshit. Your arguments are only logical according to your subjective mindset. You seem to think that having less (common) things to do will make the game more interesting. Everyone else disagrees. How the hell are you going to have an objective, logical argument about something when everyone else subjectively disagrees with your premises? It's certainly possible to have a rational, logical argument about this, it's just not possible to *prove* it without testing. Also, everyone in the world could disagree with me, and if they resorted to emotion-based and knee-jerk reactionary stances without thought like most people in this thread, they would still be wrong. | ||
| ||
