EPTIf starcraft 2 only changed the interface.... - Page 7
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Mmad
Netherlands124 Posts
| ||
|
gravity
Australia1988 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:18 radiaL wrote: jesus you are worse than ovazio congradulations! I don't see how arguing what I believe can make me worse than a deliberate troll. Gee, I'm so sorry for not caving in to the irrational majority opinion on this issue. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2779 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:20 gravity wrote: It's certainly possible to have a rational, logical argument about this, it's just not possible to *proove* 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. or they could be right, but still wrong... or right but wrong but right again? | ||
|
gravity
Australia1988 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:10 BinaryStar wrote: It's perfectly logical to call something idiotioc, idiocy. Since when are ad-hominems considered logical? Logic requires arguments, not calling the opponent stupid (though you can have both, particularly in more heated arguments :D). | ||
|
BinaryStar
Afghanistan669 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:20 gravity wrote: 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. No you can't. You think doing less mundane things would be good. You state your reasons. We think doing less mundane things would be bad. We state our reasons. It's not a logical argument. It's just sharing our opinions, because that's all you can have in this issue. We gave you our opinions, but you dismiss them as knee-jerk reactions because you disagree with them. | ||
|
BinaryStar
Afghanistan669 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:23 gravity wrote: Since when are ad-hominems considered logical? Logic requires arguments, not calling the opponent stupid (though you can have both, particularly in more heated arguments :D). It's not an adhominem attack. It's nothing personal really. Rather, it's a statement of fact. I think your ideas are stupid, therefore I state what I think. If you want to take it as an insult, go ahead. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2779 Posts
Macro+Micro+Strategy+Decision making under pressure = SC With your changes you remove Macro from the ecuation, so we have: Micro+Strategy+Decision making under pressure = SC II Since they are all positive, when you substract something from a positive number, you get a lower number, so in conclusion: SC>SC II Woah, im a logical genious | ||
|
gravity
Australia1988 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:24 BinaryStar wrote: No you can't. You think doing less mundane things would be good. You state your reasons. We think doing less mundane things would be bad. We state our reasons. It's not a logical argument. It's just sharing our opinions, because that's all you can have in this issue. We gave you our opinions, but you dismiss them as knee-jerk reactions because you disagree with them. No, you try to prove your argument by saying things like "if the interface was improved, anyone could be as good as a progamer". This is obviously wrong and illogical, so I reply with arguments such as "no, because being a progamer is about more than clicking fast, and they would have the same improvements you would have". Sure, we don't have actual numerics or what have you, but that *doesn't* mean it has to boil down to "yes way" vs "no way" except at some very fundamental level we have not yet reached (ie so far everyone agrees that the game should be as fun and skillful as possible, we just disagree on how to achieve this). And I call the knee-jerk reactions because they are. How you could describe the kind of "omg being able to select multiple buildings would destroy the game and make 2 week newbs as good as Oov" hysteria as being anything other than knee-jerk is beyond me. | ||
|
gravity
Australia1988 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:26 EnDeR_ wrote: What makes SC the great game it is? Macro+Micro+Strategy+Decision making under pressure = SC With your changes you remove Macro from the ecuation, so we have: Micro+Strategy+Decision making under pressure = SC II Since they are all positive, when you substract something from a positive number, you get a lower number, so in conclusion: SC>SC II Woah, im a logical genious Total attention is limited, and it is better when attention is spent on more interesting and thought-testing things rather than assigning workers to minerals. Therefore SC II> SC. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2779 Posts
"no, because being a progamer is about more than clicking fast, and they would have the same improvements you would have" Holy shit, didn't you read Aficionado's interview? | ||
|
poor newb
United States1879 Posts
| ||
|
gravity
Australia1988 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:26 BinaryStar wrote: It's not an adhominem attack. It's nothing personal really. Rather, it's a statement of fact. I think your ideas are stupid, therefore I state what I think. If you want to take it as an insult, go ahead. It can never be a "fact" that something is idiotic. Like you just said, it's your *opinion* that they are "idiotic", but that is not a logical argument in the slightest (as you claimed). | ||
|
BinaryStar
Afghanistan669 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:30 gravity wrote: It can never be a "fact" that something is idiotic. Like you just said, it's your *opinion* that they are "idiotic", but that is not a logical argument in the slightest (as you claimed). Never said it was a logical argument. I said it was only logical to say what I think was fact. It's a subtle difference; I hope you can catch it. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2779 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:29 gravity wrote: Total attention is limited, and it is better when attention is spent on more interesting and thought-testing things rather than assigning workers to minerals. Therefore SC II> SC. Assigning workers to minerals is the easiest part of macro, a newbie can master that in less than 2 weeks. You are talking about removing all macro, not just that part. | ||
|
gravity
Australia1988 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:30 EnDeR_ wrote: Holy shit, didn't you read Aficionado's interview? Yes, clicking is more *fundamental* at any level becaue you can't implement your strategies if you can't physically carry them out. That doesn't mean that reducing the amount of "routine" clicking wouldn't allow more APM to be spent on other things. I doubt pro-gamers or anyone else have reached the maximum limit of useful EAPM, or are even close to it. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2779 Posts
| ||
|
gravity
Australia1988 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:32 EnDeR_ wrote: Assigning workers to minerals is the easiest part of macro, a newbie can master that in less than 2 weeks. You are talking about removing all macro, not just that part. Since when am I talking about "removing all macro". Units will still have to be made, and you will still have to know how many factories to build, when to build them, the best time to build which units (ie in many cases, particularly early game, building units seperately at each factory will still be the best; multi-selection helps most late-game), etc. Just because you won't have to be able to press 1sh2sh3sh4sh5sh6sh7sh8sh in 1 second isn't going to somehow remove the strategy, skill and depth from the game, and if it does then this game sucks after all (hint: I don't think it does). | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2779 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:33 gravity wrote: Yes, clicking is more *fundamental* at any level becaue you can't implement your strategies if you can't physically carry them out. That doesn't mean that reducing the amount of "routine" clicking wouldn't allow more APM to be spent on other things. I doubt pro-gamers or anyone else have reached the maximum limit of useful EAPM, or are even close to it. Multitasking is what separates progamers from our top players right now, remove things to multitask and voilá our top players would be able to compete with progamers, effectively reducing the skill gap, making the game easier to play, easier to master, and easier in general. | ||
|
gravity
Australia1988 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:33 EnDeR_ wrote: And quit the shitty argument about logic, who fucking cares about semantics? It's not just an issue of semantics; when people think they are right and winning arguments despite being wildly illogical, they are that much further from the truth. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2779 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:35 gravity wrote: Since when am I talking about "removing all macro". Units will still have to be made, and you will still have to know how many factories to build, when to build them, the best time to build which units (ie in many cases, particularly early game, building units seperately at each factory will still be the best; multi-selection helps most late-game), etc. Just because you won't have to be able to press 1sh2sh3sh4sh5sh6sh7sh8sh in 1 second isn't going to somehow remove the strategy, skill and depth from the game, and if it does then this game sucks after all (hint: I don't think it does). No, you said auto-queue units in buildings, that's removing macro to me. | ||
| ||
