|
On November 04 2008 04:04 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2008 03:56 maybenexttime wrote:On November 03 2008 22:51 Archaic wrote:
I agree wholly with this article... Casual gamers aren't going to complain about not having MBS! They are D-- lolchobo level anyways. They probably don't even use hotkeys! Casuals will be bothered by the lack of MBS, but the certainly won't be bothered by being unable to hotkey multiple buildings under one key. The group of players that'll probably whine the most are WC3 players who are semi-decent and refuse to accept the fact that SC2 is not a sequel to WC3 and that it's (SC2) not going to have its macro component as insignificant as WC3's. I actually like the idea of not being able to hotkey multiple buildings but being able to select them, as I'm sure I've said before when you've brought it up, but how do you implement it? Do you just make it so that hotkeying them when you have 10 gates selected has no effect? Do you make it so that if you select 10 gates, and then hotkey them, you can't build from them (but perhaps rally)? How do you do it without being unintuitive?
I don't know how to solve the unintuitiveness issuse, really. I hope there are some UI traits that casuals would deem as unintuitive besides that so that it isn't that much of a put-off.
What's the most important thing is Blizzard's implementing drag-selection for buildings (something I've mentioned in other threads):
Draw a selection box - select units (unless there are only buildings within the box).
Hold Ctrl + draw a box - select buildings (unless there are only units within the box).
|
On November 03 2008 22:38 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2008 16:02 MYM.Testie wrote:
I have never in my life seen a poll so raped.
Holy shit. The poll links to No twice. Show nested quote +On November 03 2008 14:31 Centric wrote:On November 03 2008 13:58 waterGHOSTCLAWdragon wrote:On November 03 2008 13:52 jodogohoo wrote:
send this article to blizzard It's okay, a decent amount of blizzard reads tl.net. Yeah but in reading incoherent, idiotic posts supporting MBS like some of the ones in this thread they'll think that the community is still "divided" about the issue. I don't think they would give a shit unless we were united behind the stance that these UI fuck-ups are not okay. But the community IS divided.
Guys, the community is NOT divided. 90% of TL.netters are saying that MBS would be horrible. 9% are saying that it wouldn't be that bad...but would still much rather have it removed if they had the choice. and the 1% remaining are making idiotic comments about how MBS would be the best thing. If you combine the first 2 groups, you have pretty much everyone united against it. I think it's pretty obvious that the overwhelming majority doesn't want it. That's not division.
|
On November 04 2008 04:39 TheFlashyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2008 22:38 FrozenArbiter wrote:On November 03 2008 16:02 MYM.Testie wrote:
I have never in my life seen a poll so raped.
Holy shit. The poll links to No twice. On November 03 2008 14:31 Centric wrote:On November 03 2008 13:58 waterGHOSTCLAWdragon wrote:On November 03 2008 13:52 jodogohoo wrote:
send this article to blizzard It's okay, a decent amount of blizzard reads tl.net. Yeah but in reading incoherent, idiotic posts supporting MBS like some of the ones in this thread they'll think that the community is still "divided" about the issue. I don't think they would give a shit unless we were united behind the stance that these UI fuck-ups are not okay. But the community IS divided. Guys, the community is NOT divided. 90% of TL.netters are saying that MBS would be horrible. 9% are saying that it wouldn't be that bad...but would still much rather have it removed if they had the choice. and the 1% remaining are making idiotic comments about how MBS would be the best thing. If you combine the first 2 groups, you have pretty much everyone united against it. I think it's pretty obvious that the overwhelming majority doesn't want it. That's not division.
Have you ever visited the official Battle.net forums? SC2Armory? Starfeeder?
There are many people who want MBS. TL.net is an island amids the sea of casual players.
|
ive visited these 3 sites but im having a hard time finding specifically pro-MBS comments. Most ppl are talking about unit abilities. if you could post links here, that would be cool. im really curious.
|
On November 03 2008 15:24 SayTT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2008 11:02 IdrA wrote:On November 03 2008 03:39 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
What Nony wrote here is in contrast to what Artosis wrote in a somewhat recent thread (about the ability to follow the most solid standard build orders and great mechanics being the most important thing).
Also, progamers often gamble with BOs, that is definitely true, we see some really crazy openings sometimes which rarely make sense, and it's all because they think they can get away with it (because they hope the opponent doesn't think they'd do that particular BO). It's basically a blind guess, although TL users will call this amazing psychological tricks.
TL users might confuse BO gambling with having ingenious strategy (but only if a progamer is doing it). whens the last time a progamer has done a build which doesnt make sense? they take calculated risks, with builds planned against what they believe their opponent will do based on who the opponent is and whatever they manage to scout in game, and they also prep for days planning out how to respond in any given situation. that is what strategy IS, and if you dont think its complex in sc thats just because of your very, very, very flawed understanding of the game. just because you cant appreciate something doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
But really, strategy is incredibly shallow in SC. Tactics, on the other hand, is *theoretically* complex in SC, but in practice it's also quite shallow (but still a lot deeper than strategy) since the high speed forces the players to only do the absolutely most important tasks and ignore a lot of other tasks which *could* give them an advantage *if* they had additional time for them, but since they do not, they are ignored in favor of the more important tasks. Unfortunately though, the most important tasks are rather shallow ("clicky macro" (I like that term) and all related stuff ... all part of mechanics, which the spectators also don't see (another negative aspect)).
please enlighten me, what are these grave tactical mistakes that top progamers make because of lack of time? (and of course the mistakes are made at lower levels, because the players arent good enough. thats what skill differentiation is all about) dont spout some bullshit about multi pronged attacks and guerilla stuff, it is an unpopular style because it most often leads to the wearing away of your army as your opponent cleans up your smaller raiding groups with superior forces and slowly builds up a unit advantage. however it does exist in some scenarios, watch flash vs bisu on katrina. flash splitting his army 3 different ways to take out the mass expos with bisu recalling everywhere off 3 star arbs to defend. progamers dont play like that because its not a particularly good style (and thats not a result of sc, its inherent in any game because the defender will always have an advantage) + Show Spoiler +actually mbs and automining will exacerbate this, which is why its bullshit people claim theyll make for more exciting micro based games with attacks all over and shit. with mbs and automining everyone will have near perfect macro, that makes it far far more dangerous to risk the guerilla warfare style of play, because your little attacks get crushed.. you lose. in sc if you run your opponent all over the map his macro suffers because its hard to multitask like that. in sc2 once you get some kind of unit disadvantage you're pretty much fucked because you're not gonna be able to outplay your opponent.. because it doesnt take any effort to play. , not because theyre incapable of executing it.
And these discussions are always running into a dead end anyway since players will only listen to who is the most skilled player at this very moment. Which is the reason why gameplay discussion on TL is so goddamn awful - players don't use common sense, don't use intelligence, don't use good arguments to discuss gameplay - they just look at how skilled the player who's arguing is at this very moment, not realizing that a lot of gameplay discussion is unrelated to skill (best example: the Blizzard employees, they're all SC noobs, but know a shit ton more about gameplay than any wannabe here from TL)
if you want anyone to take you seriously you should stop making idiotic claims in vague abstractions. if you know so much more about the game than people who actually play it, would you please enlighten us? not just brag about your intellectual superiority. people dont only listen to skilled players, skilled players have the necessary background and base knowledge to make informed arguments about the situation. while alot of newbies like yourself make idiotic posts supporting bad positions. people arent agreeing with you not because you arent a skilled player, but because you make bad arguments. and, by the way, the vast majority of the people here posting about sc2 who are against easy mode features are not very good sc players themselves. Word, great post. 0xDEADBEEF will never dare to answere to this though, it's allways the same.
Exactly. I waste enough time trying to educate stupid SC players here anyway.
Since I just watched Savior's last proleague game (vs. TT), I can give you another example why I am getting sick and bored of these discussions about obvious crap which TL denies.
Watch the game mentioned above, and see a reaver doing full (> 80) damage to a bunch of slowhydras and speedhydras which are moving directly away from the reaver. Since a few of them died, it's very likely the initial hit did 100% damage and the lesser splash damage was enough to kill the rest (hydras have 80 HP in case you didn't know). Sorry I can't be assed to provide you with the exact MM:SS count but you'll see it, guaranteed)
Some here at TL said I was wrong, and said that they'd do either 50% damage (always!) or simply "always less damage to moving targets" (hi IdrA). I said that everything can happen (including full or no damage), and what exactly happens is not controllable by the player (i.e. it's GODDAMN LUCK). Of course, that made TL angry, the well-respected posters said I was wrong, and the mob believed the well-respected posters. Great.
So now that that's out of the way, I can guarantee you that they'll still not believe me although they can see it for themselves. They'll now delude themselves by inventing excuses, and 80% of TL will believe *them* instead of me. I have seen millions of scarabs/mines killing billions of units in these 10 years, I can tell you reavers, scarabs and mines are *not predictable*, it's quite a big luck element actually. But TL deludes themselves and thinks it's somehow predictable and if something out of the normal happens (e.g. a reaver doing full dmg or a unit getting no dmg) they'll just somehow attribute it to player skill, because it would be an affront to their godlike skillful game to think otherwise. Well, I tell you what, Britney Spears makes shitty music too but it's loved by so many. That SC1 is so big in Korea doesn't mean it's a perfect game. It's flawed, but the flaws aren't fixed (Blizz wouldn't want to break any more) and the fans think they're either features or not really flaws although they are.
So really, is it worth the effort? No. The majority of current SC players are stupid fanboys, period. And no amount of reasoning including examples and long arguments are going to change that.
Of course, you don't need to know these details to play well. You just need (roughly said) a) the best/most solid build orders on every map for every matchup, b) a sense of timing, c) speeeeeeeeeed/mechanics/clicky macro, d) some tiny 14 y/o balls in order to sometimes do a 5pool or hidden expo or shit like that which is totally amaaaaazing (if a progamer does it; if not, it's stupid).
All in all, it's things like that which prove that some well-respected TL users doesn't really know a lot about game details, and are thus very unlikely to provide good arguments in gameplay discussions, whether they can play well or not.
Now flame on, kids. It's really my last post here.
|
Good, no one will miss you. 
|
It is true scarabs sometimes do no damage when a unit is running away and the scarab has a long way to travel. You know why that is? Because of poor 'control.'
Pros control+click the approximate location where they want the Reaver to aim/focus.
Wow, I cleared that up in about 3 sentences, huzzah.
|
On November 04 2008 04:44 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2008 04:39 TheFlashyOne wrote:On November 03 2008 22:38 FrozenArbiter wrote:On November 03 2008 16:02 MYM.Testie wrote:
I have never in my life seen a poll so raped.
Holy shit. The poll links to No twice. On November 03 2008 14:31 Centric wrote:On November 03 2008 13:58 waterGHOSTCLAWdragon wrote:On November 03 2008 13:52 jodogohoo wrote:
send this article to blizzard It's okay, a decent amount of blizzard reads tl.net. Yeah but in reading incoherent, idiotic posts supporting MBS like some of the ones in this thread they'll think that the community is still "divided" about the issue. I don't think they would give a shit unless we were united behind the stance that these UI fuck-ups are not okay. But the community IS divided. Guys, the community is NOT divided. 90% of TL.netters are saying that MBS would be horrible. 9% are saying that it wouldn't be that bad...but would still much rather have it removed if they had the choice. and the 1% remaining are making idiotic comments about how MBS would be the best thing. If you combine the first 2 groups, you have pretty much everyone united against it. I think it's pretty obvious that the overwhelming majority doesn't want it. That's not division. Have you ever visited the official Battle.net forums? SC2Armory? Starfeeder? There are many people who want MBS. TL.net is an island amids the sea of casual players.
Seriously, i don't know where you found all these pro-MBS comments, i went to these 3 sites, did a keyword search and couldnt find anything.
|
On November 04 2008 05:13 TheFlashyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2008 04:44 maybenexttime wrote:On November 04 2008 04:39 TheFlashyOne wrote:On November 03 2008 22:38 FrozenArbiter wrote:On November 03 2008 16:02 MYM.Testie wrote:
I have never in my life seen a poll so raped.
Holy shit. The poll links to No twice. On November 03 2008 14:31 Centric wrote:On November 03 2008 13:58 waterGHOSTCLAWdragon wrote:On November 03 2008 13:52 jodogohoo wrote:
send this article to blizzard It's okay, a decent amount of blizzard reads tl.net. Yeah but in reading incoherent, idiotic posts supporting MBS like some of the ones in this thread they'll think that the community is still "divided" about the issue. I don't think they would give a shit unless we were united behind the stance that these UI fuck-ups are not okay. But the community IS divided. Guys, the community is NOT divided. 90% of TL.netters are saying that MBS would be horrible. 9% are saying that it wouldn't be that bad...but would still much rather have it removed if they had the choice. and the 1% remaining are making idiotic comments about how MBS would be the best thing. If you combine the first 2 groups, you have pretty much everyone united against it. I think it's pretty obvious that the overwhelming majority doesn't want it. That's not division. Have you ever visited the official Battle.net forums? SC2Armory? Starfeeder? There are many people who want MBS. TL.net is an island amids the sea of casual players. Seriously, i don't know where you found all these pro-MBS comments, i went to these 3 sites, did a keyword search and couldnt find anything.
MBS threads are scarce there, but ask any TL.netter, really...
|
On November 04 2008 04:55 0xDEADBEEF wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2008 15:24 SayTT wrote:On November 03 2008 11:02 IdrA wrote:On November 03 2008 03:39 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
What Nony wrote here is in contrast to what Artosis wrote in a somewhat recent thread (about the ability to follow the most solid standard build orders and great mechanics being the most important thing).
Also, progamers often gamble with BOs, that is definitely true, we see some really crazy openings sometimes which rarely make sense, and it's all because they think they can get away with it (because they hope the opponent doesn't think they'd do that particular BO). It's basically a blind guess, although TL users will call this amazing psychological tricks.
TL users might confuse BO gambling with having ingenious strategy (but only if a progamer is doing it). whens the last time a progamer has done a build which doesnt make sense? they take calculated risks, with builds planned against what they believe their opponent will do based on who the opponent is and whatever they manage to scout in game, and they also prep for days planning out how to respond in any given situation. that is what strategy IS, and if you dont think its complex in sc thats just because of your very, very, very flawed understanding of the game. just because you cant appreciate something doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
But really, strategy is incredibly shallow in SC. Tactics, on the other hand, is *theoretically* complex in SC, but in practice it's also quite shallow (but still a lot deeper than strategy) since the high speed forces the players to only do the absolutely most important tasks and ignore a lot of other tasks which *could* give them an advantage *if* they had additional time for them, but since they do not, they are ignored in favor of the more important tasks. Unfortunately though, the most important tasks are rather shallow ("clicky macro" (I like that term) and all related stuff ... all part of mechanics, which the spectators also don't see (another negative aspect)).
please enlighten me, what are these grave tactical mistakes that top progamers make because of lack of time? (and of course the mistakes are made at lower levels, because the players arent good enough. thats what skill differentiation is all about) dont spout some bullshit about multi pronged attacks and guerilla stuff, it is an unpopular style because it most often leads to the wearing away of your army as your opponent cleans up your smaller raiding groups with superior forces and slowly builds up a unit advantage. however it does exist in some scenarios, watch flash vs bisu on katrina. flash splitting his army 3 different ways to take out the mass expos with bisu recalling everywhere off 3 star arbs to defend. progamers dont play like that because its not a particularly good style (and thats not a result of sc, its inherent in any game because the defender will always have an advantage) + Show Spoiler +actually mbs and automining will exacerbate this, which is why its bullshit people claim theyll make for more exciting micro based games with attacks all over and shit. with mbs and automining everyone will have near perfect macro, that makes it far far more dangerous to risk the guerilla warfare style of play, because your little attacks get crushed.. you lose. in sc if you run your opponent all over the map his macro suffers because its hard to multitask like that. in sc2 once you get some kind of unit disadvantage you're pretty much fucked because you're not gonna be able to outplay your opponent.. because it doesnt take any effort to play. , not because theyre incapable of executing it.
And these discussions are always running into a dead end anyway since players will only listen to who is the most skilled player at this very moment. Which is the reason why gameplay discussion on TL is so goddamn awful - players don't use common sense, don't use intelligence, don't use good arguments to discuss gameplay - they just look at how skilled the player who's arguing is at this very moment, not realizing that a lot of gameplay discussion is unrelated to skill (best example: the Blizzard employees, they're all SC noobs, but know a shit ton more about gameplay than any wannabe here from TL)
if you want anyone to take you seriously you should stop making idiotic claims in vague abstractions. if you know so much more about the game than people who actually play it, would you please enlighten us? not just brag about your intellectual superiority. people dont only listen to skilled players, skilled players have the necessary background and base knowledge to make informed arguments about the situation. while alot of newbies like yourself make idiotic posts supporting bad positions. people arent agreeing with you not because you arent a skilled player, but because you make bad arguments. and, by the way, the vast majority of the people here posting about sc2 who are against easy mode features are not very good sc players themselves. Word, great post. 0xDEADBEEF will never dare to answere to this though, it's allways the same. + Show Spoiler +Exactly. I waste enough time trying to educate stupid SC players here anyway.
Since I just watched Savior's last proleague game (vs. TT), I can give you another example why I am getting sick and bored of these discussions about obvious crap which TL denies.
Watch the game mentioned above, and see a reaver doing full (> 80) damage to a bunch of slowhydras and speedhydras which are moving directly away from the reaver. Since a few of them died, it's very likely the initial hit did 100% damage and the lesser splash damage was enough to kill the rest (hydras have 80 HP in case you didn't know). Sorry I can't be assed to provide you with the exact MM:SS count but you'll see it, guaranteed)
Some here at TL said I was wrong, and said that they'd do either 50% damage (always!) or simply "always less damage to moving targets" (hi IdrA). I said that everything can happen (including full or no damage), and what exactly happens is not controllable by the player (i.e. it's GODDAMN LUCK). Of course, that made TL angry, the well-respected posters said I was wrong, and the mob believed the well-respected posters. Great.
So now that that's out of the way, I can guarantee you that they'll still not believe me although they can see it for themselves. They'll now delude themselves by inventing excuses, and 80% of TL will believe *them* instead of me. I have seen millions of scarabs/mines killing billions of units in these 10 years, I can tell you reavers, scarabs and mines are *not predictable*, it's quite a big luck element actually. But TL deludes themselves and thinks it's somehow predictable and if something out of the normal happens (e.g. a reaver doing full dmg or a unit getting no dmg) they'll just somehow attribute it to player skill, because it would be an affront to their godlike skillful game to think otherwise. Well, I tell you what, Britney Spears makes shitty music too but it's loved by so many. That SC1 is so big in Korea doesn't mean it's a perfect game. It's flawed, but the flaws aren't fixed (Blizz wouldn't want to break any more) and the fans think they're either features or not really flaws although they are.
So really, is it worth the effort? No. The majority of current SC players are stupid fanboys, period. And no amount of reasoning including examples and long arguments are going to change that.
Of course, you don't need to know these details to play well. You just need (roughly said) a) the best/most solid build orders on every map for every matchup, b) a sense of timing, c) speeeeeeeeeed/mechanics/clicky macro, d) some tiny 14 y/o balls in order to sometimes do a 5pool or hidden expo or shit like that which is totally amaaaaazing (if a progamer does it; if not, it's stupid).
All in all, it's things like that which prove that some well-respected TL users doesn't really know a lot about game details, and are thus very unlikely to provide good arguments in gameplay discussions, whether they can play well or not.
Now flame on, kids. It's really my last post here.
Why the fuck are you even here? Why the fuck do you even watch SC? Why do you even fucking care? I'm glad you're gone.
|
On November 04 2008 05:17 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2008 05:13 TheFlashyOne wrote:On November 04 2008 04:44 maybenexttime wrote:On November 04 2008 04:39 TheFlashyOne wrote:On November 03 2008 22:38 FrozenArbiter wrote:On November 03 2008 16:02 MYM.Testie wrote:
I have never in my life seen a poll so raped.
Holy shit. The poll links to No twice. On November 03 2008 14:31 Centric wrote:On November 03 2008 13:58 waterGHOSTCLAWdragon wrote:On November 03 2008 13:52 jodogohoo wrote:
send this article to blizzard It's okay, a decent amount of blizzard reads tl.net. Yeah but in reading incoherent, idiotic posts supporting MBS like some of the ones in this thread they'll think that the community is still "divided" about the issue. I don't think they would give a shit unless we were united behind the stance that these UI fuck-ups are not okay. But the community IS divided. Guys, the community is NOT divided. 90% of TL.netters are saying that MBS would be horrible. 9% are saying that it wouldn't be that bad...but would still much rather have it removed if they had the choice. and the 1% remaining are making idiotic comments about how MBS would be the best thing. If you combine the first 2 groups, you have pretty much everyone united against it. I think it's pretty obvious that the overwhelming majority doesn't want it. That's not division. Have you ever visited the official Battle.net forums? SC2Armory? Starfeeder? There are many people who want MBS. TL.net is an island amids the sea of casual players. Seriously, i don't know where you found all these pro-MBS comments, i went to these 3 sites, did a keyword search and couldnt find anything. MBS threads are scarce there, but ask any TL.netter, really...
Dude, wtf;
im posting that 99% of TL.net is against MBS.
you reply ; that is true, but TL is just an island and that many other sites are in fact a sea of casuals that are pro-MBS. you name 3 sites.
my reply ; i visited these 3 sites but couldnt find anything.
you reply; MBS threads are scarce there but ask any TL.netter.
me now ; wtf ? 
|
What he means is that those threads are mostly gone now, but most TL.netters know that those sites have quite a few supporters of MBS.
|
On November 04 2008 05:28 TheFlashyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2008 05:17 maybenexttime wrote:On November 04 2008 05:13 TheFlashyOne wrote:On November 04 2008 04:44 maybenexttime wrote:On November 04 2008 04:39 TheFlashyOne wrote:On November 03 2008 22:38 FrozenArbiter wrote:On November 03 2008 16:02 MYM.Testie wrote:
I have never in my life seen a poll so raped.
Holy shit. The poll links to No twice. On November 03 2008 14:31 Centric wrote:On November 03 2008 13:58 waterGHOSTCLAWdragon wrote:On November 03 2008 13:52 jodogohoo wrote:
send this article to blizzard It's okay, a decent amount of blizzard reads tl.net. Yeah but in reading incoherent, idiotic posts supporting MBS like some of the ones in this thread they'll think that the community is still "divided" about the issue. I don't think they would give a shit unless we were united behind the stance that these UI fuck-ups are not okay. But the community IS divided. Guys, the community is NOT divided. 90% of TL.netters are saying that MBS would be horrible. 9% are saying that it wouldn't be that bad...but would still much rather have it removed if they had the choice. and the 1% remaining are making idiotic comments about how MBS would be the best thing. If you combine the first 2 groups, you have pretty much everyone united against it. I think it's pretty obvious that the overwhelming majority doesn't want it. That's not division. Have you ever visited the official Battle.net forums? SC2Armory? Starfeeder? There are many people who want MBS. TL.net is an island amids the sea of casual players. Seriously, i don't know where you found all these pro-MBS comments, i went to these 3 sites, did a keyword search and couldnt find anything. MBS threads are scarce there, but ask any TL.netter, really... Dude, wtf; im posting that 99% of TL.net is against MBS. you reply ; that is true, but TL is just an island and that many other sites are in fact a sea of casuals that are pro-MBS. you name 3 sites. my reply ; i visited these 3 sites but couldnt find anything. you reply; MBS threads are scarce there but ask any TL.netter. me now ; wtf ?
The phrase "Guys, the community is NOT divided." was rather vague. I thought you meant the whole SC community and not just TL.net.
TL.net is not a good representation of what the whole community thinks of MBS and other such UI "improvements." There is a divide.
|
anyways..it seems like pro-MBS people just went away..hiding.. maybe they realized that they didnt have a clue. it seems that 99% of those who are currently, and actively expressing their opinions are now anti-MBS. So i'll maintain my theory that the community is not divided and that we pretty much are all against it. I hope this will make Blizzard's decision easier.
|
i got one last thing to say before stop postin in mbs threads, For-ever
if sc2 get mbs and automine and all these automatizations, then sc3 ill be even worse, and sc4 too and sc5 too, its a tumor, i see the death of this franchise in the future.
So i want everybody that support automatizations and less macro, to die asap, and take the blizz members responsible for this with them , to hell.
gg no re/bw ftw
btw , deadbeef said nothing w/ nothing
|
My name is TheFlashyOne, aka FlashyFinancier, and i approve Ki_Do's message.
|
On November 03 2008 22:38 FrozenArbiter wrote:
But the community IS divided.
I wouldnt count ppl to the community, which will quit SC2 after 1 year max.
And those are the ppl posting on the given sites like b.net forums.
|
On November 04 2008 06:24 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:I wouldnt count ppl to the community, which will quit SC2 after 1 year max. And those are the ppl posting on the given sites like b.net forums.
Maybe a lot of them, but you underestimate the people who have played UMS/BGH/money maps for years, I think.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 04 2008 04:39 TheFlashyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2008 22:38 FrozenArbiter wrote:On November 03 2008 16:02 MYM.Testie wrote:
I have never in my life seen a poll so raped.
Holy shit. The poll links to No twice. On November 03 2008 14:31 Centric wrote:On November 03 2008 13:58 waterGHOSTCLAWdragon wrote:On November 03 2008 13:52 jodogohoo wrote:
send this article to blizzard It's okay, a decent amount of blizzard reads tl.net. Yeah but in reading incoherent, idiotic posts supporting MBS like some of the ones in this thread they'll think that the community is still "divided" about the issue. I don't think they would give a shit unless we were united behind the stance that these UI fuck-ups are not okay. But the community IS divided. Guys, the community is NOT divided. 90% of TL.netters are saying that MBS would be horrible. 9% are saying that it wouldn't be that bad...but would still much rather have it removed if they had the choice. and the 1% remaining are making idiotic comments about how MBS would be the best thing. If you combine the first 2 groups, you have pretty much everyone united against it. I think it's pretty obvious that the overwhelming majority doesn't want it. That's not division.
No, you are wrong, all you need to do is go back and read some of the 30+ page threads on MBS or dig up the old poll which was pretty close to 50/50 (I'm sure there were illegitimate votes, but that probably goes for both sides).
Is the majority of TL against MBS? Yeah probably. 90%? No. Fucking. Way.
For crying out loud - Chill (yes, the TL.net admin Chill, terror of the SC Strat forum, THAT Chill) is in favour of MBS.
Feel however you want about MBS, but don't underestimate how many real players feel differently.
On November 04 2008 04:55 0xDEADBEEF wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2008 15:24 SayTT wrote:On November 03 2008 11:02 IdrA wrote:On November 03 2008 03:39 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
What Nony wrote here is in contrast to what Artosis wrote in a somewhat recent thread (about the ability to follow the most solid standard build orders and great mechanics being the most important thing).
Also, progamers often gamble with BOs, that is definitely true, we see some really crazy openings sometimes which rarely make sense, and it's all because they think they can get away with it (because they hope the opponent doesn't think they'd do that particular BO). It's basically a blind guess, although TL users will call this amazing psychological tricks.
TL users might confuse BO gambling with having ingenious strategy (but only if a progamer is doing it). whens the last time a progamer has done a build which doesnt make sense? they take calculated risks, with builds planned against what they believe their opponent will do based on who the opponent is and whatever they manage to scout in game, and they also prep for days planning out how to respond in any given situation. that is what strategy IS, and if you dont think its complex in sc thats just because of your very, very, very flawed understanding of the game. just because you cant appreciate something doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
But really, strategy is incredibly shallow in SC. Tactics, on the other hand, is *theoretically* complex in SC, but in practice it's also quite shallow (but still a lot deeper than strategy) since the high speed forces the players to only do the absolutely most important tasks and ignore a lot of other tasks which *could* give them an advantage *if* they had additional time for them, but since they do not, they are ignored in favor of the more important tasks. Unfortunately though, the most important tasks are rather shallow ("clicky macro" (I like that term) and all related stuff ... all part of mechanics, which the spectators also don't see (another negative aspect)).
please enlighten me, what are these grave tactical mistakes that top progamers make because of lack of time? (and of course the mistakes are made at lower levels, because the players arent good enough. thats what skill differentiation is all about) dont spout some bullshit about multi pronged attacks and guerilla stuff, it is an unpopular style because it most often leads to the wearing away of your army as your opponent cleans up your smaller raiding groups with superior forces and slowly builds up a unit advantage. however it does exist in some scenarios, watch flash vs bisu on katrina. flash splitting his army 3 different ways to take out the mass expos with bisu recalling everywhere off 3 star arbs to defend. progamers dont play like that because its not a particularly good style (and thats not a result of sc, its inherent in any game because the defender will always have an advantage) + Show Spoiler +actually mbs and automining will exacerbate this, which is why its bullshit people claim theyll make for more exciting micro based games with attacks all over and shit. with mbs and automining everyone will have near perfect macro, that makes it far far more dangerous to risk the guerilla warfare style of play, because your little attacks get crushed.. you lose. in sc if you run your opponent all over the map his macro suffers because its hard to multitask like that. in sc2 once you get some kind of unit disadvantage you're pretty much fucked because you're not gonna be able to outplay your opponent.. because it doesnt take any effort to play. , not because theyre incapable of executing it.
And these discussions are always running into a dead end anyway since players will only listen to who is the most skilled player at this very moment. Which is the reason why gameplay discussion on TL is so goddamn awful - players don't use common sense, don't use intelligence, don't use good arguments to discuss gameplay - they just look at how skilled the player who's arguing is at this very moment, not realizing that a lot of gameplay discussion is unrelated to skill (best example: the Blizzard employees, they're all SC noobs, but know a shit ton more about gameplay than any wannabe here from TL)
if you want anyone to take you seriously you should stop making idiotic claims in vague abstractions. if you know so much more about the game than people who actually play it, would you please enlighten us? not just brag about your intellectual superiority. people dont only listen to skilled players, skilled players have the necessary background and base knowledge to make informed arguments about the situation. while alot of newbies like yourself make idiotic posts supporting bad positions. people arent agreeing with you not because you arent a skilled player, but because you make bad arguments. and, by the way, the vast majority of the people here posting about sc2 who are against easy mode features are not very good sc players themselves. Word, great post. 0xDEADBEEF will never dare to answere to this though, it's allways the same. Exactly. I waste enough time trying to educate stupid SC players here anyway. Since I just watched Savior's last proleague game (vs. TT), I can give you another example why I am getting sick and bored of these discussions about obvious crap which TL denies. Watch the game mentioned above, and see a reaver doing full (> 80) damage to a bunch of slowhydras and speedhydras which are moving directly away from the reaver. Since a few of them died, it's very likely the initial hit did 100% damage and the lesser splash damage was enough to kill the rest (hydras have 80 HP in case you didn't know). Sorry I can't be assed to provide you with the exact MM:SS count but you'll see it, guaranteed) Some here at TL said I was wrong, and said that they'd do either 50% damage (always!) or simply "always less damage to moving targets" (hi IdrA). I said that everything can happen (including full or no damage), and what exactly happens is not controllable by the player (i.e. it's GODDAMN LUCK). Of course, that made TL angry, the well-respected posters said I was wrong, and the mob believed the well-respected posters. Great. So now that that's out of the way, I can guarantee you that they'll still not believe me although they can see it for themselves. They'll now delude themselves by inventing excuses, and 80% of TL will believe *them* instead of me. I have seen millions of scarabs/mines killing billions of units in these 10 years, I can tell you reavers, scarabs and mines are *not predictable*, it's quite a big luck element actually. But TL deludes themselves and thinks it's somehow predictable and if something out of the normal happens (e.g. a reaver doing full dmg or a unit getting no dmg) they'll just somehow attribute it to player skill, because it would be an affront to their godlike skillful game to think otherwise. Well, I tell you what, Britney Spears makes shitty music too but it's loved by so many. That SC1 is so big in Korea doesn't mean it's a perfect game. It's flawed, but the flaws aren't fixed (Blizz wouldn't want to break any more) and the fans think they're either features or not really flaws although they are. So really, is it worth the effort? No. The majority of current SC players are stupid fanboys, period. And no amount of reasoning including examples and long arguments are going to change that. Of course, you don't need to know these details to play well. You just need (roughly said) a) the best/most solid build orders on every map for every matchup, b) a sense of timing, c) speeeeeeeeeed/mechanics/clicky macro, d) some tiny 14 y/o balls in order to sometimes do a 5pool or hidden expo or shit like that which is totally amaaaaazing (if a progamer does it; if not, it's stupid). All in all, it's things like that which prove that some well-respected TL users doesn't really know a lot about game details, and are thus very unlikely to provide good arguments in gameplay discussions, whether they can play well or not. Now flame on, kids. It's really my last post here.
If you weren't so offensive and condescending in this post, there'd be parts of it that I could agree with you on.. But mob mentality is not unique to TL.net, it will happen to virtually any big forum (or at least I am yet to find one without it).
|
On November 04 2008 05:37 TheFlashyOne wrote:
anyways..it seems like pro-MBS people just went away..hiding.. maybe they realized that they didnt have a clue. it seems that 99% of those who are currently, and actively expressing their opinions are now anti-MBS. So i'll maintain my theory that the community is not divided and that we pretty much are all against it. I hope this will make Blizzard's decision easier.
dude, I'm against MBS, but this "theory" you are maintaining that 99% of the SC community is against it is just plain wrong... in fact it's downright idiotic. I'd stop spewing that unless you want to look like a retard..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
