|
On August 03 2017 08:43 SnowfaLL wrote:
but SC2 had the opportunity to make a more strategically balanced micro/macro setting RTS over the macro-oriented BW (how many times do you see flash or jaedong, the top 2 players of all time, just a-move units without micro because they know macroing is more important) - BW is the definition of macro-intensive, speed-based RTS.
The answer is: not many times u see flash or jaedong just a-move units without micro.
And that's why there are so many replies against you, because u made a false statement (well actually just implied one). Now go ahead, win a ZvZ match up without microing too hard.
I've heard somewhere on the internet "the best way to find an answer for your question is not to ask, but to make a false statement". And that's what happened here.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On August 03 2017 19:40 Bonyth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 08:43 SnowfaLL wrote:
but SC2 had the opportunity to make a more strategically balanced micro/macro setting RTS over the macro-oriented BW (how many times do you see flash or jaedong, the top 2 players of all time, just a-move units without micro because they know macroing is more important) - BW is the definition of macro-intensive, speed-based RTS. The answer is: not many times u see flash or jaedong just a-move units without micro. And that's why there are so many replies against you, because u made a false statement (well actually just implied one). Now go ahead, win a ZvZ match up without microing too hard. I've heard somewhere on the internet "the best way to find an answer for your question is not to ask, but to make a false statement". And that's what happened here.
It's because his question is extremely silly. You can see the importance of micro throughout the game. Take TvZ for example. You see Flash move out with 4 marines sometimes and in some cases, he'll get caught but does some great splits to minimize the damage. I mean it's only 4 marines right? Who cares if he loses them, no?
Then once he's expanded, he goes up to his favourite 5rax build and he's moving all over the map, targeting mutas, placing firebats in front for lings and pulling back (or into chokes to minimize damage) depending on situation. Heck, sometimes if he looks away to macro, he gets caught and quickly switches back. Losing map control as terran can be devastating. In the same vein, if the zerg can't micro his mutalisks, he may as well not make them lol. These scenarios are also very simplistic and don't even consider the late game with either mech or the older apm intensive SK Terran. Then once you consider that ZvZ is a microfest and well, you wonder how he would make such a statement.
|
On August 03 2017 20:18 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 19:40 Bonyth wrote:On August 03 2017 08:43 SnowfaLL wrote:
but SC2 had the opportunity to make a more strategically balanced micro/macro setting RTS over the macro-oriented BW (how many times do you see flash or jaedong, the top 2 players of all time, just a-move units without micro because they know macroing is more important) - BW is the definition of macro-intensive, speed-based RTS. The answer is: not many times u see flash or jaedong just a-move units without micro. And that's why there are so many replies against you, because u made a false statement (well actually just implied one). Now go ahead, win a ZvZ match up without microing too hard. I've heard somewhere on the internet "the best way to find an answer for your question is not to ask, but to make a false statement". And that's what happened here. It's because his question is extremely silly. You can see the importance of micro throughout the game. Take TvZ for example. You see Flash move out with 4 marines sometimes and in some cases, he'll get caught but does some great splits to minimize the damage. I mean it's only 4 marines right? Who cares if he loses them, no? Then once he's expanded, he goes up to his favourite 5rax build and he's moving all over the map, targeting mutas, placing firebats in front for lings and pulling back (or into chokes to minimize damage) depending on situation. Heck, sometimes if he looks away to macro, he gets caught and quickly switches back. Losing map control as terran can be devastating. In the same vein, if the zerg can't micro his mutalisks, he may as well not make them lol. These scenarios are also very simplistic and don't even consider the late game with either mech or the older apm intensive SK Terran. Then once you consider that ZvZ is a microfest and well, you wonder how he would make such a statement.
The only interpretation that I can come up with that isn't completely, demonstrably false when it comes to the notion of micro being less important in BW (compared to SC2 micro) is the fact that generally speaking, on average, a BW match will very rarely be decided by a single micro or positioning mistake, especially in the late game. The same is obviously not true of SC2, where many many games over the years have been decided by a single engagement; and in that sense sure you could say micro is more important in SC2 because if you lose that one big fight you will lose the game, therefore you have to micro really hard when it does happen.
(It's certainly not anything to brag about or point to as evidence of SC2 being a more "strategically balanced micro/macro RTS" though, and therein lies the irony.)
|
On August 03 2017 20:18 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 19:40 Bonyth wrote:On August 03 2017 08:43 SnowfaLL wrote:
but SC2 had the opportunity to make a more strategically balanced micro/macro setting RTS over the macro-oriented BW (how many times do you see flash or jaedong, the top 2 players of all time, just a-move units without micro because they know macroing is more important) - BW is the definition of macro-intensive, speed-based RTS. The answer is: not many times u see flash or jaedong just a-move units without micro. And that's why there are so many replies against you, because u made a false statement (well actually just implied one). Now go ahead, win a ZvZ match up without microing too hard. I've heard somewhere on the internet "the best way to find an answer for your question is not to ask, but to make a false statement". And that's what happened here. It's because his question is extremely silly. You can see the importance of micro throughout the game. Take TvZ for example. You see Flash move out with 4 marines sometimes and in some cases, he'll get caught but does some great splits to minimize the damage. I mean it's only 4 marines right? Who cares if he loses them, no? Then once he's expanded, he goes up to his favourite 5rax build and he's moving all over the map, targeting mutas, placing firebats in front for lings and pulling back (or into chokes to minimize damage) depending on situation. Heck, sometimes if he looks away to macro, he gets caught and quickly switches back. Losing map control as terran can be devastating. In the same vein, if the zerg can't micro his mutalisks, he may as well not make them lol. These scenarios are also very simplistic and don't even consider the late game with either mech or the older apm intensive SK Terran. Then once you consider that ZvZ is a microfest and well, you wonder how he would make such a statement.
Micro is very important. What makes the pros so good is that they macro so efficiently that they also have time for micro, and they know when to focus on what.
|
On August 03 2017 20:18 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 19:40 Bonyth wrote:On August 03 2017 08:43 SnowfaLL wrote:
but SC2 had the opportunity to make a more strategically balanced micro/macro setting RTS over the macro-oriented BW (how many times do you see flash or jaedong, the top 2 players of all time, just a-move units without micro because they know macroing is more important) - BW is the definition of macro-intensive, speed-based RTS. The answer is: not many times u see flash or jaedong just a-move units without micro. And that's why there are so many replies against you, because u made a false statement (well actually just implied one). Now go ahead, win a ZvZ match up without microing too hard. I've heard somewhere on the internet "the best way to find an answer for your question is not to ask, but to make a false statement". And that's what happened here. It's because his question is extremely silly. You can see the importance of micro throughout the game. Take TvZ for example. You see Flash move out with 4 marines sometimes and in some cases, he'll get caught but does some great splits to minimize the damage. I mean it's only 4 marines right? Who cares if he loses them, no? Then once he's expanded, he goes up to his favourite 5rax build and he's moving all over the map, targeting mutas, placing firebats in front for lings and pulling back (or into chokes to minimize damage) depending on situation. Heck, sometimes if he looks away to macro, he gets caught and quickly switches back. Losing map control as terran can be devastating. In the same vein, if the zerg can't micro his mutalisks, he may as well not make them lol. These scenarios are also very simplistic and don't even consider the late game with either mech or the older apm intensive SK Terran. Then once you consider that ZvZ is a microfest and well, you wonder how he would make such a statement.
I think he had a fair point about Flash though, Flash is indeed a fearsome mechanical player, but his forte was never otherworldly micro-management. I first noticed it when his bionic micro-management wasn't as jaw-dropping as someone like BoxeR, or Casy during their primes, despite making his debut being initially dubbed as the "Bionic Genius".
Flash didn't have many moments like Jaedong, JangBi, or Stork, making a situation out of nothing with naught but micro-management magic. He would often get out micro-managed by players with precise siege tank utilization like FBH during the early game, which is why he initially had so much trouble against FBH. Flash's initial relationship with Stork was Flash getting the advantageous situation, but gradually losing his grip on the game to Stork's masterful micro-management of protoss units.
Flash was usually on the receiving end of godlike micro-managament super plays, rather than Flash winning from a bleak situation with nothing but his micro-management to fall back on. Even the game you mentioned, Flash lost that game to MVP because his late-game Battlecruiser micro-management was nothing out of the ordinary, and if I remember correctly, Flash was leading for most of the game, so it was his micro-management that let him down. NaDa during his prime would often win disadvantageous games just with his superior Battlecruiser micro-management in the late game.
It's not to say that Flash had sub-par micro-management, but rather that his forte lied elsewhere. Even now when he streams, and plays custom maps with other streamers like EffOrt and BeSt, Flash doesn't tend to fair that well when he plays in micro-management intensive custom maps (although I admit familiarity is more important in this situation). I personally think Flash's micro-management, even during his prime, was good enough to be not abused by the very best micro-management players, but Flash himself didn't belong to that very few select group of players.
Perhaps if another game has incredibly high demand for managing a single death ball of units (like late-game terran-versus-terran with Battlecruisers), rather than multi-tasking from multiple bases, Flash might have been rendered mortal.
However, the theory that every top class Starcraft 2 player had superior micro-management abilities to their Brood War counterpart is quite clearly false. For example Jaedong must rank within the top five micro-management players of all time of any race and era, and yet from what I hear his Starcraft 2 success didn't mirror that ability. That's why I hoped someone would give clarification of exactly which skill-sets were required to reach the top in Starcraft 2, because that would be really helpful in characterizing some of the players I am interested in.
|
The guy who thinks BW is all about macro has no idea how it works. To macro like FlaSh you need to bind all your production building from 4 to 8,9 and produce units without even looking back to your base while moving with your army on map where he microes which requires a lot APM. Can we then equate macro cycle to micro? Because it requires so many constant actions. Then you need to bind newcoming units to hotkeys, position them because A move never works.
Now take a look at SC2: 1 key for all production facilites (yes, if you have 5 rax and 5 facts, 2 ports you can just bind them to one key then switch them via TAB), 1 key for your army, A move mostly works. The only thing depends is a bit micro when deathball vs. deathball scenario occurrs. You can win without micro if your army composition is better.
BW isn't just macro or micro or both, it's the real trategy, it's about everything: timing, decision making, positioning, spell casting, multitasking, map control. BW requires everything and pros master all of them to get ahead of their opponent. Having macro but not having micro and vice versa never works.
|
On August 03 2017 21:08 outscar wrote:
The guy who thinks BW is all about macro has no idea how it works. To macro like FlaSh you need to bind all your production building from 4 to 8,9 and produce units without even looking back to your base while moving with your army on map where he microes which requires a lot APM. Can we then equate macro cycle to micro? Because it requires so many constant actions.
I believe you're overexaggerating a little. I don't think macro in BW works that way, at least for all the players, someone may correct me - from what I've seen to produce units people bind one of the buildings and while having camera over the production they just click each building and produce units separately. That's what I try to do as well, is it the wrong way? Although it may be true when the production building number is low.
|
^ it works fine to macro that way yeah ; personally I group gates into 5 6 7 @start of game and use these hotkeys during early game to produce occasionaly but then mostly I do it like you, ofc you just can't group all your gates anyway, and well its just faster to click on gates if you have many gates. However the benefit in early game of keeping eyes on units while producing out of few gates exists.
micro and tactics are really important in BW all the time, only if you have a big advantage you can afford to do A-move, when you have won and for some reason you don't care about playing out the last battle or smtg. There can be some a-move situations but.. it's hard to justify really a-moving. It's just you rly want to get your macro right sure, so many times you will sacrifice some micro to macro, but the opposite can be true as well in some situations I think. I used to have a style where I focused a lot on micro or tactics, trying to make the most of my units all the time, it's nice because it can scare/pressure your opponent too. You just want to make sure you don't sacrifice macro for it unless it's justified, like you are sure that you will get smtg worth more out of it. But macro comes in cycles, so if you are fast and organized enough you should have time to get a lot of micro done most of the time. There is so much you can potentially do, that you can argue it's impossible to micro everything to the max. It's part of personal style to choose how much/when to focus on what. But since it's lot less volatile compared to SC2, yes you have some extra freedom to leave some stuff behind sometimes. Also of note is you more often spread your units and engage with parts of them instead of all, and action occurs over more spread out area and time, plus the defender or positional advantage gives you space to let something be for a few seconds without being too harshly punished for that (if not out of position etc). Since its all very hard and there is a lot to do and lot that can happen, any player can make mistake so you can see a pro not pay attention to some units and lose smtg he could have done better with.. Trying to prey on your opponent's units not reacting in time is a tactic that can works just like in SC2, you will just not gain as much in as little time out of it.
|
The big distinction is not between macro and micro, which are both characterized by rapid clicking and pressing buttons, but rather between mechanics (those two combined) and strategy. In ASL we saw that with proper pre-game analysis and counter-strategy, Shine was able to defeat many opponents that were considered 'better players' but who did not have the adaptivity to deal with Shine's bag of builds. Shine took them out of their comfort zone of contemporary standard play that these pros practice day in day out.
|
yeah I agree  mechanics and decision making (= strategy and tactics), I guess in the middle is awareness or focus
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On August 03 2017 20:52 Letmelose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 20:18 BigFan wrote:On August 03 2017 19:40 Bonyth wrote:On August 03 2017 08:43 SnowfaLL wrote:
but SC2 had the opportunity to make a more strategically balanced micro/macro setting RTS over the macro-oriented BW (how many times do you see flash or jaedong, the top 2 players of all time, just a-move units without micro because they know macroing is more important) - BW is the definition of macro-intensive, speed-based RTS. The answer is: not many times u see flash or jaedong just a-move units without micro. And that's why there are so many replies against you, because u made a false statement (well actually just implied one). Now go ahead, win a ZvZ match up without microing too hard. I've heard somewhere on the internet "the best way to find an answer for your question is not to ask, but to make a false statement". And that's what happened here. It's because his question is extremely silly. You can see the importance of micro throughout the game. Take TvZ for example. You see Flash move out with 4 marines sometimes and in some cases, he'll get caught but does some great splits to minimize the damage. I mean it's only 4 marines right? Who cares if he loses them, no? Then once he's expanded, he goes up to his favourite 5rax build and he's moving all over the map, targeting mutas, placing firebats in front for lings and pulling back (or into chokes to minimize damage) depending on situation. Heck, sometimes if he looks away to macro, he gets caught and quickly switches back. Losing map control as terran can be devastating. In the same vein, if the zerg can't micro his mutalisks, he may as well not make them lol. These scenarios are also very simplistic and don't even consider the late game with either mech or the older apm intensive SK Terran. Then once you consider that ZvZ is a microfest and well, you wonder how he would make such a statement. I think he had a fair point about Flash though, Flash is indeed a fearsome mechanical player, but his forte was never otherworldly micro-management. I first noticed it when his bionic micro-management wasn't as jaw-dropping as someone like BoxeR, or Casy during their primes, despite making his debut being initially dubbed as the "Bionic Genius". Flash didn't have many moments like Jaedong, JangBi, or Stork, making a situation out of nothing with naught but micro-management magic. He would often get out micro-managed by players with precise siege tank utilization like FBH during the early game, which is why he initially had so much trouble against FBH. Flash's initial relationship with Stork was Flash getting the advantageous situation, but gradually losing his grip on the game to Stork's masterful micro-management of protoss units. Flash was usually on the receiving end of godlike micro-managament super plays, rather than Flash winning from a bleak situation with nothing but his micro-management to fall back on. Even the game you mentioned, Flash lost that game to MVP because his late-game Battlecruiser micro-management was nothing out of the ordinary, and if I remember correctly, Flash was leading for most of the game, so it was his micro-management that let him down. NaDa during his prime would often win disadvantageous games just with his superior Battlecruiser micro-management in the late game. It's not to say that Flash had sub-par micro-management, but rather that his forte lied elsewhere. Even now when he streams, and plays custom maps with other streamers like EffOrt and BeSt, Flash doesn't tend to fair that well when he plays in micro-management intensive custom maps (although I admit familiarity is more important in this situation). I personally think Flash's micro-management, even during his prime, was good enough to be not abused by the very best micro-management players, but Flash himself didn't belong to that very few select group of players. Perhaps if another game has incredibly high demand for managing a single death ball of units (like late-game terran-versus-terran with Battlecruisers), rather than multi-tasking from multiple bases, Flash might have been rendered mortal. However, the theory that every top class Starcraft 2 player had superior micro-management abilities to their Brood War counterpart is quite clearly false. For example Jaedong must rank within the top five micro-management players of all time of any race and era, and yet from what I hear his Starcraft 2 success didn't mirror that ability. That's why I hoped someone would give clarification of exactly which skill-sets were required to reach the top in Starcraft 2, because that would be really helpful in characterizing some of the players I am interested in.
I think you missed my point lol. I wasn't trying to argue whether Flash or Jaedong is doing more macro or micro, just that both are important in the game. The guy I responded to was understating the importance of micro in the game. Having said that, this was a nice small piece about Flash. Thanks!
On August 03 2017 21:21 aQuaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 21:08 outscar wrote:
The guy who thinks BW is all about macro has no idea how it works. To macro like FlaSh you need to bind all your production building from 4 to 8,9 and produce units without even looking back to your base while moving with your army on map where he microes which requires a lot APM. Can we then equate macro cycle to micro? Because it requires so many constant actions. I believe you're overexaggerating a little. I don't think macro in BW works that way, at least for all the players, someone may correct me - from what I've seen to produce units people bind one of the buildings and while having camera over the production they just click each building and produce units separately. That's what I try to do as well, is it the wrong way? Although it may be true when the production building number is low.
I'm not sure if I've seen Flash doing it that way before (only tune in here and there) but early to mid game, lots of pros will bind their production buildings and cycle through to make units. If you watch the Camelot game between Bisu vs sSak in the last ASL, Bisu is mine sweeping while making probes and goons. The way you describe is something that typically gets done mid to late. Flash for example does it when he has 5 rax and onwards. I think it all comes down to comfort level in the end as well. I only bind 1-2 buildings and stick to that camera method because I'm slow at cycling etc...
|
On August 03 2017 21:08 outscar wrote:
[...]
Now take a look at SC2: 1 key for all production facilites (yes, if you have 5 rax and 5 facts, 2 ports you can just bind them to one key then switch them via TAB), 1 key for your army, A move mostly works. The only thing depends is a bit micro when deathball vs. deathball scenario occurrs. You can win without micro if your army composition is better.
[...]
I don't play sc2 and rarely watch it, but that statement seems as ignorant as the statement that bw only needs macro.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On August 03 2017 22:09 Keniji wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 21:08 outscar wrote:
[...]
Now take a look at SC2: 1 key for all production facilites (yes, if you have 5 rax and 5 facts, 2 ports you can just bind them to one key then switch them via TAB), 1 key for your army, A move mostly works. The only thing depends is a bit micro when deathball vs. deathball scenario occurrs. You can win without micro if your army composition is better.
[...] I don't play sc2 and rarely watch it, but that statement seems as ignorant as the statement that bw only needs macro.
His production facilities structure is true afaik, you can tab between structures. As for the army one, I think the better players try to split their army up into 3-4 control groups. The AI does a great job of giving you a concave during engagements but I wouldn't say there's no micro at all. Just highly depends on what's facing what. An immortal all-in requires a great deal of micro for example which is why only Parting managed to keep winning with it while something like the 1-1-1 against protoss back in the early was more of establish a position and do target firing etc...
|
On August 03 2017 22:09 Keniji wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 21:08 outscar wrote:
[...]
Now take a look at SC2: 1 key for all production facilites (yes, if you have 5 rax and 5 facts, 2 ports you can just bind them to one key then switch them via TAB), 1 key for your army, A move mostly works. The only thing depends is a bit micro when deathball vs. deathball scenario occurrs. You can win without micro if your army composition is better.
[...] I don't play sc2 and rarely watch it, but that statement seems as ignorant as the statement that bw only needs macro.
I just read that post again... what does this mean, "a move mostly works"? Does it not work in BW? Do you actualy have to micro each unit individually in Brood War for any attack to work? You can win without micro if your army composition is better? Is it impossible to happen in BW? I'll give you benefit of the doubt and assume you had in mind those early to mid-game engagements where units are not as numerous and micro really counts, but you are trying really, really hard to twist arguments to your favor and make SC2 sound as dumb as possible.
BW isn't just macro or micro or both, it's the real trategy, it's about everything: timing, decision making, positioning, spell casting, multitasking, map control.
Please, PLEASE tell me which of those beautifully pointed out terms does not apply to SC2.
On August 03 2017 22:12 BigFan wrote:
The AI does a great job of giving you a concave during engagements but I wouldn't say there's no micro at all
What do you mean by "AI giving you a concave"? In SC2 AI just makes units execute orders in the quickest possible manner, it never does anything else.
Back to topic, can anyone with Remastered tell me how does it look on their battle.net account? Does the Remastered license have any text or is it this image of box and nothing next to it?
|
On August 03 2017 21:21 aQuaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 21:08 outscar wrote:
The guy who thinks BW is all about macro has no idea how it works. To macro like FlaSh you need to bind all your production building from 4 to 8,9 and produce units without even looking back to your base while moving with your army on map where he microes which requires a lot APM. Can we then equate macro cycle to micro? Because it requires so many constant actions. I believe you're overexaggerating a little. I don't think macro in BW works that way, at least for all the players, someone may correct me - from what I've seen to produce units people bind one of the buildings and while having camera over the production they just click each building and produce units separately. That's what I try to do as well, is it the wrong way? Although it may be true when the production building number is low.
Some players macro without looking back to their bases early to mid game when you don't have more than 5 producing buildings. Then of course players bind camera location to macro point when they got more buildings.
In SC2 I'm saying A move mostly works because AI has no issues with pathfinding. AI auto gives you concave the rest is up to you to make split and micro your units etc.
|
I think you missed my point lol. I wasn't trying to argue whether Flash or Jaedong is doing more macro or micro, just that both are important in the game. The guy I responded to was understating the importance of micro in the game. Having said that, this was a nice small piece about Flash. Thanks!
Well we can't be correct about everything. I did think he had some interesting points (albeit with some misinformation) which is why I wanted to bounce some ideas around. Starcraft is a very taxing game, but rather than looking from a quantitative point of view, other games might have differing orders of importance.
I don't know whether Brood War or Starcraft 2 is more demanding from a sheer micro-management perspective, but it could be the case that excellence in micro-management could be rewarded more heavily in the latter. Maybe he had a point about the reasons for Flash not being able to sustaining his level of domination in Starcraft 2, although it cannot be denied that his thoughts on Brood War was riddled with inaccuracies.
Since professional Brood War and professional Starcraft 2 has a decent overlap of players, trying to come up with an order of importance in various skill-sets may be an interesting way of finding out which player was good at what. If it of some interest to someone, you could do the reverse, and use successful players from each game to figure out which skill-sets were rewarded the most highly. It's not that I trusted his opinion on Brood War, but more that I wanted to know what some of his thoughts on Starcraft 2, but he got tilted off the face of the earth after being called out on his ignorance.
|
On August 03 2017 22:19 aQuaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 22:09 Keniji wrote:On August 03 2017 21:08 outscar wrote:
[...]
Now take a look at SC2: 1 key for all production facilites (yes, if you have 5 rax and 5 facts, 2 ports you can just bind them to one key then switch them via TAB), 1 key for your army, A move mostly works. The only thing depends is a bit micro when deathball vs. deathball scenario occurrs. You can win without micro if your army composition is better.
[...] I don't play sc2 and rarely watch it, but that statement seems as ignorant as the statement that bw only needs macro. I just read that post again... what does this mean, "a move mostly works"? Does it not work in BW? Do you actualy have to micro each unit individually in Brood War for any attack to work? You can win without micro if your army composition is better? Is it impossible to happen in BW? I'll give you benefit of the doubt and assume you had in mind those early to mid-game engagements where units are not as numerous and micro really counts, but you are trying really, really hard to twist arguments to your favor and make SC2 sound as dumb as possible. Show nested quote +BW isn't just macro or micro or both, it's the real trategy, it's about everything: timing, decision making, positioning, spell casting, multitasking, map control. Please, PLEASE tell me which of those beautifully pointed out terms does not apply to SC2. Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 22:12 BigFan wrote:
The AI does a great job of giving you a concave during engagements but I wouldn't say there's no micro at all What do you mean by "AI giving you a concave"? In SC2 AI just makes units execute orders in the easiest possible manner, it never does anything else. Back to topic, can anyone with Remastered tell me how does it look on their battle.net account? Does the Remastered license have any text or is it this image of box and nothing next to it?
Mate, you sound like you never played BW or SC2 lol. You never noticed the nice surround the SC2 AI is giving you when you a-move your units into the opponents? When you a-click in SC2 (1 action), does the AI just execute that single action you did, or does it really give you something, you would have to apply maybe 20-40 actions for in BW? Get a full surround of a control group of units with another 1 or 2 full control groups (thats 12 btw) in BW, record it. Do the same in SC2. Come back here, post your evidence of it being the same. Nobody will laugh at you, promised.
|
On August 03 2017 22:39 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 22:19 aQuaSC wrote:On August 03 2017 22:09 Keniji wrote:On August 03 2017 21:08 outscar wrote:
[...]
Now take a look at SC2: 1 key for all production facilites (yes, if you have 5 rax and 5 facts, 2 ports you can just bind them to one key then switch them via TAB), 1 key for your army, A move mostly works. The only thing depends is a bit micro when deathball vs. deathball scenario occurrs. You can win without micro if your army composition is better.
[...] I don't play sc2 and rarely watch it, but that statement seems as ignorant as the statement that bw only needs macro. I just read that post again... what does this mean, "a move mostly works"? Does it not work in BW? Do you actualy have to micro each unit individually in Brood War for any attack to work? You can win without micro if your army composition is better? Is it impossible to happen in BW? I'll give you benefit of the doubt and assume you had in mind those early to mid-game engagements where units are not as numerous and micro really counts, but you are trying really, really hard to twist arguments to your favor and make SC2 sound as dumb as possible. BW isn't just macro or micro or both, it's the real trategy, it's about everything: timing, decision making, positioning, spell casting, multitasking, map control. Please, PLEASE tell me which of those beautifully pointed out terms does not apply to SC2. On August 03 2017 22:12 BigFan wrote:
The AI does a great job of giving you a concave during engagements but I wouldn't say there's no micro at all What do you mean by "AI giving you a concave"? In SC2 AI just makes units execute orders in the easiest possible manner, it never does anything else. Back to topic, can anyone with Remastered tell me how does it look on their battle.net account? Does the Remastered license have any text or is it this image of box and nothing next to it? Mate, you sound like you never played BW or SC2 lol. You never noticed the nice surround the SC2 AI is giving you when you a-move your units into the opponents? When you a-click in SC2 (1 action), does the AI just execute that single action you did, or does it really give you something, you would have to apply maybe 20-40 actions for in BW? Get a full surround of a control group of units with another 1 or 2 full control groups (thats 12 btw) in BW, record it. Do the same in SC2. Come back here, post your evidence of it being the same. Nobody will laugh at you, promised.
I thought we were talking about real in-game scenarios, this 'nice surround' and '1 action a-click' can be very inefficient no matter how beautiful it may seem to you. Are we now quantifying amount of actions needed to do actions, more clicks = better game? Have you ever seen a regular player in SC2 making attacks by clicking a-move once with his army?
All these comments on how easy control in SC2 is are just continuous attempts to make the game look overly simple while suggesting that Brood War is better simply because you have to click more.
You can laugh at me all you want, it doesn't bother me. I promise. You could also hold those comments about me supposedly being an idiot for yourself. Or is it how old-school Brood War elite talks? Because I've seen this attitude towards me here repeatedly, along with ^^ and 
|
^ Ignore this SC2 guy, he came here to defend his game. Why don't you go back to SC2 general mate? No one cares anymore what you say because either you troll or act dumb.
|
On August 03 2017 22:59 outscar wrote:
^ Ignore this SC2 guy, he came here to defend his game. Why don't you go back to SC2 general mate? No one cares anymore what you say because either you troll or act dumb.
Can I play your game still at least?
I can't imagine how some of you guys can act in real life being so bitter and trying to downplay everybody's else different arguments, I never said one bad thing towards any of you or Brood War and yet I'm treated like that for no reason. Or maybe it's because I try to put my perspective on SC2 that you hate purely because it's not BW. I guess that's what TL has become, an ultimate circlejerk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
