| Forum Index > BW General |
|
EnDeR_
Spain2931 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:36 gravity wrote: 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. Yeah, but that argument isn't getting anywhere, discuss the issue at hand. | ||
|
gravity
Australia2198 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:36 EnDeR_ wrote: 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. And that lasts until the highly creative and strategic players who were held back a bit by lower APM suddenly become the new BW gods. Which is much better than the gap being determined solely by multitask as you imply (which I don't think it is, at least not at the very top level; players like Oov and July seem to me to be more strategically sound than the best foreigners in addition to being better multitaskers, at least as far as I can tell as a non-expert). Also, multitasking will still probably be quite important at the top level *anyway*; the differnce is that more clicks will be spent on things like harassing and pre-combat maneuvering rather than pressing 1z2z3z4d5d6d or putting workers on minerals or whatever. | ||
|
BinaryStar
Afghanistan669 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:28 gravity wrote: 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. Actually--*I* didn't say any of that, first of all. Secondly, don't use the words "improve" so eagerly. Thirdly, the main reason people (or at least me) are against it is because it's just dumbing down the game and removing an important aspect of it. You seem to think it's worth the sacrifice; we don't. Again, it's a matter of opinion. It's an exaggeration I suppose, but not a knee-jerk reaction. Oov is revered for his crazy macro--the changes you suggest would make achieving his level of macro much easier, even compensating for his improvements post-interface changes. You can't deny that allowing you to instantly macro by pressing two (maybe four) hotkeys wouldn't make the macro incredibly easy. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2931 Posts
2: (this is more radical): You should be able to tell a building to 'pump' units/peons/upgrades, and specify which order of priority your cash is allocated (e.g pump zealots and probes, but make sure money goes to zeals instead of probes first). I think this also would mean less time doing boring stuff. If you are a progamer then you can not use this feature, and by building each thing at the exact right time for your personal strategy, probably get some kind of advantage over someone who doesn't, though maybe not if in an epic micro battle. That means you don't have to go back to your base and produce more units, it means you have less things to do in a battle, it means you have to multitask less, it definately means that you won't get an advantage for being fast if at that instant you managed to get your units in a perfect formatation and went back to main and produce, and go back as fast as you can, so right after the battle is done you can overwhelm him. That advantage would be lost, meaning you don't get rewarded for being fast, meaning you don't get rewarded for practicing more, meaning you lower the skill level required. | ||
|
gravity
Australia2198 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:37 EnDeR_ wrote: No, you said auto-queue units in buildings, that's removing macro to me. No, Tal said that, and I'm not sure if I agree completely on that point (I'm arguing more in favour of interface improvements in general; most people here are opposed to almost all possible interface improvements of any kind, so it doesn't really matter which ones specifically I defend), but even if that was implemented, the best players would still build units manually most of the game in order to get the most efficiency and avoid losing minerals randomly when they need them, so even this extreme measure would hardly remove macro from the game. | ||
|
gravity
Australia2198 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:38 EnDeR_ wrote: Yeah, but that argument isn't getting anywhere, discuss the issue at hand. I can discuss more than one thing at a time, that's the magic of the internet :D. | ||
|
rel
Guam3521 Posts
| ||
|
Oxygen
Canada3581 Posts
| ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2859 Posts
Because I can you know, since I know a thing or two about development. But it will be a long as post, like a few pages and I do not feel like writing shit like that up and then having some ignorant bitch ignore it and keep on flaming. Actually would be better to take it by IM or something. And before you start flaming me for it not coming immediatly, no I don't have time tonigth because it's saturday nigth but I could do it tomorow. | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12249 Posts
| ||
|
BinaryStar
Afghanistan669 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:41 gravity wrote: No, Tal said that, and I'm not sure if I agree completely on that point (I'm arguing more in favour of interface improvements in general; most people here are opposed to almost all possible interface improvements of any kind, so it doesn't really matter which ones specifically I defend), but even if that was implemented, the best players would still build units manually most of the game in order to get the most efficiency and avoid losing minerals randomly when they need them, so even this extreme measure would hardly remove macro from the game. No, it does matter what points you are defending. No one here is absolutely against interface changes; they are mostly against the changes Tal suggested. Since you showed up in the middle of the argument in defense of Tal's position and haven't really specified which ones you are defending, don't be surprised when people associate you with Tal's suggestions. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2931 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:39 gravity wrote: And that lasts until the highly creative and strategic players who were held back a bit by lower APM suddenly become the new BW gods. Which is much better than the gap being determined solely by multitask as you imply (which I don't think it is, at least not at the very top level; players like Oov and July seem to me to be more strategically sound than the best foreigners in addition to being better multitaskers, at least as far as I can tell as a non-expert). Also, multitasking will still probably be quite important at the top level *anyway*; the differnce is that more clicks will be spent on things like harassing and pre-combat maneuvering rather than pressing 1z2z3z4d5d6d or putting workers on minerals or whatever. Those highly creative and strategic players who are held back by lower APM would become right now the new BW gods if they had the motivation to practice the 12 hours a day progamers do. You want to take that away from them? It is still possible to be a good strategist and have relatively worse micro than other progamers like oov and win, like he does. All those strategies he does are possible, solely because of his insanely good macro. | ||
|
gravity
Australia2198 Posts
[QUOTE]On May 21 2005 10:28 gravity wrote: [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE] [quote]Actually--*I* didn't say any of that, first of all.[/quote] I know, I was referring more to the general hysteria in these threads. [quote]Secondly, don't use the words "improve" so eagerly.[/quote] I consider these things improvements so I refer to them as such. [quote]Thirdly, the main reason people (or at least me) are against it is because it's just dumbing down the game and removing an important aspect of it. You seem to think it's worth the sacrifice; we don't. Again, it's a matter of opinion.[/quote] Removing things that are largely mindless (1sh2sh3sh4sh5sh6sh7sh8sh in 1 second, individually selecting HTs in a hurry, etc) is hardly "dumbing down" anything. In fact, I would say that the current interface limitations "dumb down" the game from what it *could* be. [quote]It's an exaggeration I suppose, but not a knee-jerk reaction. Oov is revered for his crazy macro--the changes you suggest would make achieving his level of macro much easier, even compensating for his improvements post-interface changes. You can't deny that allowing you to instantly macro by pressing two (maybe four) hotkeys wouldn't make the macro incredibly easy.[/QUOTE] If all that makes Oov good is his macro then maybe we're mistaken to "revere" him. But I think Oov has shown great strategic skill, timing, etc, in his games, and none of that would be lost; in fact, he would have more time to do things like his wraith harass due to fewer clicks being spent on factories (again, at least in the late game; early game manual control would still be more efficient because no likely algorithm is going to be as smart as a human in dynamic competitive game). And macroing with fewer keys would certainly make it easier, but I don't think it would make it "incredibly easy"; it would just make the emphasis more on spending your money right at the right time, rather than just spending it period (since the latter would be much easier). | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2931 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:42 gravity wrote: I can discuss more than one thing at a time, that's the magic of the internet :D. You just boggle down the thread with useless post to anybody else besides you 2. | ||
|
gravity
Australia2198 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:48 EnDeR_ wrote: Those highly creative and strategic players who are held back by lower APM would become right now the new BW gods if they had the motivation to practice the 12 hours a day progamers do. Not necessarily, dexterity is at least partially a genetic trait. Besides, I don't think it's a good thing that a boring and uncreative player can potentially become a good progamer just by playing constantly. | ||
|
gravity
Australia2198 Posts
Too late :p. | ||
|
gravity
Australia2198 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:47 BinaryStar wrote: No, it does matter what points you are defending. No one here is absolutely against interface changes; they are mostly against the changes Tal suggested.. That's not really true, people here have historically been against practically any interface changes. Heck, people even massively bitched about right-click rally points in 1.12, which didn't exactly ruin the game by any means. I do think Tal might be suggesting too high a level of automation, but mainly because such heavy automation would probably end up being so inefficient as to be nearly useless, which is the opposite of making the game too easy. | ||
|
BinaryStar
Afghanistan669 Posts
If all that makes Oov good is his macro then maybe we're mistaken to "revere" him. That's not what I said, but sure, OK. | ||
|
gravity
Australia2198 Posts
You said Oov was revered because of his macro. Maybe if would have been better for me to say that it's dumb to revere an SC player because they sequentially click their factories fast, rather than because of their strategic ability or their subtle timing and intuition or whatever. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2931 Posts
On May 21 2005 10:52 gravity wrote: Not necessarily, dexterity is at least partially a genetic trait. Besides, I don't think it's a good thing that a boring and uncreative player can potentially become a good progamer just by playing constantly. This is where our opinions differ. I want a game where if i spend 7 years playing, and you only spend 3, i want to be able to beat you every time, i want a game where time spent rewards your skill, i want a game where after 7 years of playing it, there's still things to be learned. You want a game that can be mastered faster, in short, you want an easier game | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
OSC
WardiTV Weekly
The Patches Monday
Sparkling Tuna Cup
PiG Sty Festival
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
