|
On February 07 2009 07:32 Scamp wrote:
All that's being done here is people are taking a general statement and using specific examples (and a lot of useless chatter) to combat it. This takes discussions way off track which means that while it'll be about whatever you make it out to be, the point is lost.
...It's called rebuttal... If you make the general statement "there's no such thing as a black cow," am I not allowed to give you a specific example of a black cow to disprove you?
On February 07 2009 07:32 Scamp wrote:
In general, nothing Rekrul said has any practical meaning. There's no reason why APM is needed, just specific examples of when it gives an advantage. There's no proof that such a game will get boring after one year, that's just speculation based on other games. There was no link to those games having a lower APM or anything like that. There was no substance in his argument. Or maybe I missed it amid all the banter. I'm not sure.
So even if no other RTS has the success and longevity that Starcraft has had and the thing that differentiates Starcraft from other RTSs is its higher mechanical demand still means we can't draw any conclusions from this?
On February 07 2009 07:32 Scamp wrote:
In addition, Sirlin's arguments were taken out of context and adjusted accordingly. Does he ever say that APM should be removed? I'd like to see it. Does APM need to be reduced? I don't know the answer to that, but did he say that directly?
Things that ensure that players with absurdly high APM still have advantage over players with merely "very high" APM. Why they need such an advantage is still kind of beyond me.
And what do you mean by "APM should be removed?" Make Starcraft into a movie?
On February 07 2009 07:32 Scamp wrote:
I like Seku's post a lot and some of the questions it raises. I was most interested when he said...
"To me all this accomplishes is taking out a crucial aspect of the game that has kept Starcraft the exciting, fast paced, and ever growing competitive game it is. There is so much room for improvement the game will never get stagnant unless the player does."
Most people agree that removing the physical capabilities of Starcraft would make it a boring game. I disagree that it would be boring, but it certainly wouldn't be Starcraft. However, people seem to be proposing that Starcraft would be better if the game were harder to play. Can you imagine the APM needed if you weren't able to select groups of units?
On February 07 2009 00:34 Saracen wrote:
Mechanics set the bar higher and give use something to aspire to, and gameplay level will always be increasing. Without mechanics, gameplay will stagnate and level off after the first year of the game's release. There's something in Starcraft about trying to do everything at once (harassing w/ sairs while pushing Z's third, dropping his nat and sneaking a DT into his main while maintaining perfect macro) that other games don't have. With Starcraft, you have a goal that seems feasible but in reality is nearly impossible to reach, which is what attributes to its longevity. It's not just about who has the best strategy but who has best execution as well.
I think the problem Sirlin has with Starcraft is that it doesn't fit his definition of a "strategy" game so he tries to modify it to fit the definition. He doesn't grasp the fact that Starcraft is superior to other RTS games BEACUSE it's so different.
On February 07 2009 07:32 Scamp wrote:
But again, that's just a specific example of a general point. The point is that there is nothing wrong with making a game easier to play. You don't have to sacrifice APM requirements to do this. The best design IMO would be one where anyone can do any strategy easily, but the people who train themselves physically can execute it more efficiently or accurately.
If this is true, then why would you?
It seems that you're advocating a game that's accessible to the casual player yet competitive at the same time, which is basically what everyone wants. In the end, that's what everyone wants, but we're disagreeing on how to achieve this. The thing is, what you're saying already applies to a certain extent to Starcraft. Anyone can go sair/reaver but few people have the ability to execute it well. Why change something that already works, especially if by changing it you compromise the competitiveness and longevity of the game?
...But that's a tangent from the topic of Sirlin-bashing because he gives us gems like this:
Nonsense. Starcraft is an amazingly fun RTS game but it is a very arcade-like and simple RTS - the game's limited resolution and scope rewards quick hands rather than quick minds. Any serious RTS gamer would be playing something like Total Annihilation, a game that demands chess-like decision making but on a much larger scale.
MBS arguments should go back to the SC2 forum.
|
On February 07 2009 08:28 Intervigilium wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2009 05:20 psymunn wrote:On February 07 2009 04:02 Intervigilium wrote:
Sirlin just keep the "this is a straw-man argument" instead of debate the arguments in a proper manner. I lost my respect for that guy.
I also think that small dogs are larger than elephants! Are Strawman arguments debating in a proper manner. Also, seeing as everyone knows small dogs are smaller than elephants, you are wrong. you really have two options now. call me on misquoting you horribly or "debate the arguments in a proper manner" and simply admit you were wrong to make such a falicious claim. Also, I think I have sand in my vagina hello sirlin. please go fuck yourself.
hey there intervaginal, (pardon my spelling... i am canadian),
you seem to be confused. sirlin's name is david sirlin. i am simon. he has no qualms expressing himself, and doesn't exactly hide behind a handle. i'm sure if he wanted to sass you out, he would.
anyway, glad you're stepping up your game. it's a good thing starcraft doesn't test your ability to convey an argument...
@OP: sorry to derail the post. i sadly assumed this actually was a thread about sirlin's article, and not the class it's self. huge props on presenting the subject matter with a professional and even handed approach. makes me wish i was in the bay area *sigh*
|
anyway, glad you're stepping up your game. it's a good thing starcraft doesn't test your ability to convey an argument...
yeah, attacking my argument like that is really a great way to show your ability to convey an argument. props to you, kiddo. just like your little friend sirlin, who cannot debate in a proper manner, you need to attack the argumentator and avoid the argumentation.
please die.
|
On February 07 2009 08:03 TSL-Lore wrote:
he actually did say APM needs to reward players less. He never responds when people tell him players like stork and savior can top with less APM.. it's like he's got selective hearing, or in this case, selective sight.
Forgive me, but I don't understand this argument at all. Rekrul brought up Savior as well, and I don't see why. So Savior and Stork can do well at the highest level with a lower APM. Then why is the ability to go at 400 APM important?
Savior and Stork are two of the most popular players ever. So having a higher APM certainly doesn't affect things in terms of fans.
Savior and Stork are also arguably two of the most studied players ever. So having a lower APM doesn't seem to reduce the strategy.
I just don't see how pointing out players that do incredibly well despite having a lower APM proves anything other than how ridiculous APM isn't really needed.
Saracen, the statement "there is no such thing as a black cow" is not a general statement.
Secondly, is the success of Starcraft because of it's higher mechanical demand? I see no evidence of this being so. Also, I bet that if other RTS games had the fanbase and support that Starcraft has then ridiculous mechanics would be developed for those games too.
What I mean by "APM should be removed" is that some people seem to be arguing like Sirlin said to take out APM completely, and I don't think he's said anything remotely to that effect.
Changing something that works can also be referred to as changing something that's good into something better. I see no evidence that making certain things easier to do will change the competitiveness and longevity of the game. If it does, I would certainly be against it. But I see nothing wrong with giving the option to having things done an easier way especially if it still leaves the option for improvement.
But I guess we all seem to want the same thing. Why is it so hard to express ideas?
|
|
|
ok, please stop bashing sirlin here. if you want to bash him, bash him on his blog. I don't think he reads these, so it's like forming a coalition of Bush-haters in like Russia or somewhere ... Bush isn't gonna get the message.
also, please preserve your own dignity by proposing actual arguments, not random personal attacks like "I think I have sand in my vagina" or "please go fuck yourself." Believe it or not, it doesn't add anything to the discussion.
finally, Sirlin does have good thoughts, albeit from a different background. It is that background that prevents him from seeing our point of view. Like Lore said, his commentary of the second week seems more acceptable.
|
Can't believe the number of ass lickers Rekrul has lol. Sirlin doesn't know SC too well, he's trying to put his thoughts on the game coming from a fighting perspective ON HIS PERSONAL BLOG NOT ON A FORUM WHERE HE HAS so many fans, how about explaining it to him there instead of writing down a post in front of the fanbois Rekrul?
Also
On February 07 2009 09:29 Nimue wrote:
finally, Sirlin does have good thoughts, albeit from a different background. It is that background that prevents him from seeing our point of view. Like Lore said, his commentary of the second week seems more acceptable.
and
On February 07 2009 09:11 Scamp wrote:
I just don't see how pointing out players that do incredibly well despite having a lower APM proves anything other than how ridiculous APM isn't really needed.
But I guess we all seem to want the same thing. Why is it so hard to express ideas?
have expressed my sentiments.
|
On February 07 2009 09:11 Scamp wrote:
Forgive me, but I don't understand this argument at all. Rekrul brought up Savior as well, and I don't see why. So Savior and Stork can do well at the highest level with a lower APM. Then why is the ability to go at 400 APM important?
It's a matter of play styles (reserved a la Stork or metagame approach a la sAviOr vs. multi-tasking heavy Bisu or micro heavy Casy), how you move around the map (minimap vs. hotkeys - 0 "actions" vs. dozens of them), efficiency (useless "surplus" APM that doesn't give you any advantage and can even be a hinderance, a bad habit), etc.
Savior and Stork are two of the most popular players ever. So having a higher APM certainly doesn't affect things in terms of fans.
True. I don't think girls really dig APM as some people like to think. 
Savior and Stork are also arguably two of the most studied players ever. So having a lower APM doesn't seem to reduce the strategy.
At that level certainly not (however, it can make certain play styles less effective - e.g. at first, other Protoss players had trouble mimicking Bisu's style vs. Zerg).
I just don't see how pointing out players that do incredibly well despite having a lower APM proves anything other than how ridiculous APM isn't really needed.
It shows that Sirlin's argument about higher APM giving a massive advantage, and high APM being essentially required to compete was flawed.
Saracen, the statement "there is no such thing as a black cow" is not a general statement.
OK, "cows can't be black." Fine?
Secondly, is the success of Starcraft because of it's higher mechanical demand? I see no evidence of this being so. Also, I bet that if other RTS games had the fanbase and support that Starcraft has then ridiculous mechanics would be developed for those games too.
If it wasn't for physical demands, StarCraft would've been solved years ago. The fact that progamers constatly try to become more and more efficient and improve their mechanics allowed the game to keep evolving over the years. Imagine the fact that Bisu revolutionized PvZ almost a DECADE after SC's release because he was thriving to push the limits.
If it wasn't for the physical aspect of StarCraft, people would've discovered that going FE in TvZ can be much better than 2 Rax one base or that SKTerran is so efficient within a couple of years. The game would get solved and get boring.
What I mean by "APM should be removed" is that some people seem to be arguing like Sirlin said to take out APM completely, and I don't think he's said anything remotely to that effect.
He argues that physical demands should be de-emphisized so that there's more focus on "stratetegy" in a "strategy game."
This train of thought is stupid becuase it dumbs the whole game down by diminishing the importance of one aspect of the game. If you want more focus on "strategy" - add "strategy" to the game and not take something out... Otherwise, you're just dumbing down the game...
And as for his sticking to the names of the genres. "Strategy games should have little physical demands because they're about strategy" - that like saying Valve should deliberately dumb down CS because it involves extensive tactics, and the name "FPS" (or better yet: "shooters") doesn't mention tactics anywhere - beyond retarded.
Changing something that works can also be referred to as changing something that's good into something better. I see no evidence that making certain things easier to do will change the competitiveness and longevity of the game. If it does, I would certainly be against it. But I see nothing wrong with giving the option to having things done an easier way especially if it still leaves the option for improvement.
Yeah, because making the game one dimensional (heavy focus on micro), diminishing physical demands (see above) and removing fundamental StarCraft skillsets (like attention management) will make the sequel better...
(irony)
But I guess we all seem to want the same thing. Why is it so hard to express ideas?
I definitely do not want the same thing as Sirlin. he wants a dumbed down game so that it meets his weird definition of what RTS should be.
|
Talking about Savior and Stork proves that APM isn't really needed.. you are correct, which is precisely why Starcraft's UI doesn't need to be drastically changed and automated because it's already fine. That's why people bring it up to argue against Sirlin. Anywho, let's drop the whole discussion and talk abuot what awesome examples we used in week 2's lecture. Boxer's blindspot to show the effectiveness of dropship/medic/comsat/wraith all together anyone?
|
I should be going to the lab tomorrow, get yosh to come  btw how am i going to get in -_-
|
On February 07 2009 09:11 Scamp wrote:
Forgive me, but I don't understand this argument at all. Rekrul brought up Savior as well, and I don't see why. So Savior and Stork can do well at the highest level with a lower APM. Then why is the ability to go at 400 APM important?
Savior and Stork are two of the most popular players ever. So having a higher APM certainly doesn't affect things in terms of fans.
Savior and Stork are also arguably two of the most studied players ever. So having a lower APM doesn't seem to reduce the strategy.
I just don't see how pointing out players that do incredibly well despite having a lower APM proves anything other than how ridiculous APM isn't really needed.
You could play a fighting game landing every 1 or 2 frame link by hitting the button once, or you could double tap like almost any player with that level of execution does. Sure you could play slower in starcraft and be close to as effecient but it is quite clear that keeping your speed up definitely helps keep the player active and makes it EASIER for them in the long run (just like learning how to double tap or TK correctly etc would make it easier and more fun to play a fighting game). Yes it is hard to keep a constant 300apm but it's silly that people argue about it who can't seem to grasp that the difficulty of getting to the level you could actually utilize 300apm dwarfs the physical requirements completely. Just like I wouldn't want a scrub asking to have fighting game inputs or combo timing changed as they can't fully understand or appreciate the system, it's silly for Sirlin or anyone else in that position to do the same to Starcraft, if not more so.
|
Can someone link to the videos of the lectures? I hope someone makes a vod pack or something and uploads to tracker when the class is done.
|
Nimue has requested that the thread get back on track so to that effect I will address one final thing and then withdraw from arguing any more of these points here.
On February 07 2009 09:41 maybenexttime wrote:
I definitely do not want the same thing as Sirlin. he wants a dumbed down game so that it meets his weird definition of what RTS should be.
This is what happens when you put words in other people's mouths. Certainly you can disagree with things he is saying but one thing he certainly doesn't want to do is to dumb down the game.
On February 07 2009 10:14 Seku wrote:Yes it is hard to keep a constant 300apm but it's silly that people argue about it who can't seem to grasp that the difficulty of getting to the level you could actually utilize 300apm dwarfs the physical requirements completely. Just like I wouldn't want a scrub asking to have fighting game inputs or combo timing changed as they can't fully understand or appreciate the system, it's silly for Sirlin or anyone else in that position to do the same to Starcraft, if not more so.
I'm starting to understand why people bring up Savior and Stork a little more now, but a lot of the arguments that go along with it still don't add up. It seems people think that a big part of the strategy and beauty of the game comes from training yourself and utilizing tactics that only come about due to high APM, when from what I can see this is only a little bit of the strategy.
I can see how it could take away some of the fun and strategy if the mechanics in the game were neutered so that they were far easier to do but eliminated some of the options you had. But I still can't see any problems with making the game easier to play (provided you can still do everything).
I can also understand how having physical requirements is needed for a sport. (Or, in this case, an e-sport.) There is no such thing as a sport that everyone has an equal chance at if you take away all the training. (In other words, natural talent matters.) Starcraft is no different. But the higher you set the bar the more exclusive the sport becomes.
Finally, new ideas or different points of view shouldn't be scoffed at so readily and in such a hostile manner. Yes, I wouldn't want a scrub to tell me how a fighting game should go if I were a fighting game master, but I should be able to explain to the scrub why things are better my way without getting offended or using any personal attacks. If the scrub doesn't want to see things my way, he shouldn't have to.
Note that being good at the game (or in this case, a master) doesn't give me any right to tell other people how to play the game.
Thanks to all the people who gave me respectful replies. Let's try to get this thread back on track and then play some more Starcraft.
Edit: Below
On February 07 2009 12:50 Rekrul wrote: Thats the point, dumbass.
At first Rekrul's use of personal insults is off-putting. But there is something likeable about his straightforwardness. He's obviously done something right to earn some kind of following. I mean, he just posts up requests for people to do for him and they do it!
Lemme explain a few things to you, hopefully in a way your puerile manner can comprehend. Exclusive isn't always a good thing, but I guess I didn't explain myself so well. Every popular sport/game starts with a simple premise. Throw a ball into a hoop. Hit a puck into a goal. Shoot everyone on the other team. A few structural changes may come, but the premise is simple.
It's simple so everyone can play. This expands the fan base. Everyone can play and enjoy what the game has to offer. They can even try to do advanced stuff they see the pros do, just not very well. (Need a boost to dunk, for example.) The point is, though, that the elite do the advanced stuff as a derivative of the basic simple game.
It's better if the players take the game to an extreme level instead of having an extreme level thrust upon the players. Otherwise you neuter your fan base. This is what I was trying to say.
But maybe you got that already. You know your Starcraft, I don't know if you agree. The post below you agrees. I just don't know the extent of your comment due to your brashness.
That's my point, simpleton.
Re: Edit. Next post below.
Keep it simple. Your point is that there are many levels of play because it is so hard to play? The difficulty of the game isn't the reason why a game has so many levels. It's one of several reasons, and in my opinion the worst one. It is a reason, though. I won't deny that.
Do you realize that by making the interface less APM needy that it opens up the possibility for options you couldn't do before? I don't think taking away people's advantages by having insane APM is a good thing for competition. I think, however, that if the things that are needlessly complicated were made easier that it would open up lots of new things that you would be able to accomplish with all the extra APM that are freed up.
Worst case scenerio is I'm very wrong and people would just go back to playing the old way.
The interesting thing about your analogy about changing the hoop to four feet off the ground is that it really wouldn't help short people play the game at all.
And do try to be a little more creative. I already called you a simpleton, you should come up with something different when you retort.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
But the higher you set the bar the more exclusive the sport becomes.
Thats the point, dumbass.
|
sports are games that are easy to learn, impossible to master.
hard to learn, hard to master is just dumb
easy to learn easy to master makes everyone masters. which sucks
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On February 07 2009 11:27 Scamp wrote:Nimue has requested that the thread get back on track so to that effect I will address one final thing and then withdraw from arguing any more of these points here. Show nested quote +On February 07 2009 09:41 maybenexttime wrote:
I definitely do not want the same thing as Sirlin. he wants a dumbed down game so that it meets his weird definition of what RTS should be. This is what happens when you put words in other people's mouths. Certainly you can disagree with things he is saying but one thing he certainly doesn't want to do is to dumb down the game. Show nested quote +On February 07 2009 10:14 Seku wrote:Yes it is hard to keep a constant 300apm but it's silly that people argue about it who can't seem to grasp that the difficulty of getting to the level you could actually utilize 300apm dwarfs the physical requirements completely. Just like I wouldn't want a scrub asking to have fighting game inputs or combo timing changed as they can't fully understand or appreciate the system, it's silly for Sirlin or anyone else in that position to do the same to Starcraft, if not more so. I'm starting to understand why people bring up Savior and Stork a little more now, but a lot of the arguments that go along with it still don't add up. It seems people think that a big part of the strategy and beauty of the game comes from training yourself and utilizing tactics that only come about due to high APM, when from what I can see this is only a little bit of the strategy. I can see how it could take away some of the fun and strategy if the mechanics in the game were neutered so that they were far easier to do but eliminated some of the options you had. But I still can't see any problems with making the game easier to play (provided you can still do everything). I can also understand how having physical requirements is needed for a sport. (Or, in this case, an e-sport.) There is no such thing as a sport that everyone has an equal chance at if you take away all the training. (In other words, natural talent matters.) Starcraft is no different. But the higher you set the bar the more exclusive the sport becomes. Finally, new ideas or different points of view shouldn't be scoffed at so readily and in such a hostile manner. Yes, I wouldn't want a scrub to tell me how a fighting game should go if I were a fighting game master, but I should be able to explain to the scrub why things are better my way without getting offended or using any personal attacks. If the scrub doesn't want to see things my way, he shouldn't have to. Note that being good at the game (or in this case, a master) doesn't give me any right to tell other people how to play the game. Thanks to all the people who gave me respectful replies. Let's try to get this thread back on track and then play some more Starcraft. Edit: Below Show nested quote +On February 07 2009 12:50 Rekrul wrote:But the higher you set the bar the more exclusive the sport becomes. Thats the point, dumbass. At first Rekrul's use of personal insults is off-putting. But there is something likeable about his straightforwardness. He's obviously done something right to earn some kind of following. I mean, he just posts up requests for people to do for him and they do it! Lemme explain a few things to you, hopefully in a way your puerile manner can comprehend. Exclusive isn't always a good thing, but I guess I didn't explain myself so well. Every popular sport/game starts with a simple premise. Throw a ball into a hoop. Hit a puck into a goal. Shoot everyone on the other team. A few structural changes may come, but the premise is simple. It's simple so everyone can play. This expands the fan base. Everyone can play and enjoy what the game has to offer. They can even try to do advanced stuff they see the pros do, just not very well. (Need a boost to dunk, for example.) The point is, though, that the elite do the advanced stuff as a derivative of the basic simple game. It's better if the players take the game to an extreme level instead of having an extreme level thrust upon the players. Otherwise you neuter your fan base. This is what I was trying to say. But maybe you got that already. You know your Starcraft, I don't know if you agree. The post below you agrees. I just don't know the extent of your comment due to your brashness. That's my point, simpleton.
You're right about that stuff but what you don't realize is that in Starcraft things can only be taken to such a pro-extreme level with all the APM-needy-limitations in place. It's just not realistic to create such a deep strategical game where theres _always_ something someone can do to outwit the opponent. This would require too many units, too many factors and would be impossible to balance. The speed is what keeps the game competitive on extremely high levels.
You compare it to sports. Learning to play basketball is more simple than 'throw the ball into a hoop.' Anyone that knows how to play basketball has spent countless hours learning it on a team in school as a kid, learning it from Dad as a kid, or watching it on TV or w/e. Just shooting around with your friends or playing a game of horse/around the world are indeed things that take not much learning at all but thats really the same in starcraft. Two utter newbs can have the time of their lives playing eachother in a long drawn out newbie game where they barely even get an expansion. Or you could compare that to Use Map Settings games or w/e.
In starcraft1 there is no extreme level thrusted upon players. Thats why we still have games on USWEST called shit like "Team Epic) clan recruitment!" and its a clan full of complete newbies (compared to me I mean) still enjoying the game playing all the time even recruiting people into their clans! You've got those newbs. You've got the even newb'er newbs who play one game every couple months vs. their friends who also don't play at all and have fun. They dont click fast, they don't play competitively, they are still having fun. We have guys like alot of TL.nettrs that play a lot but aren't that good cause they are slow or dumb or both but they can still rock on the newbs. They love the game too. We have countless ICCupers. We have WCG level players. We have Korean amateurs, we have Korean semi pros, we have Korean pros, and we have the Korean elite. There are so many different levels of play that can all be enjoyed in starcraft _BECAUSE_ it is so hard to play. You just have to play against the right people.
A team of 6'6 black guys play against a team of 6'0 white guys. The black guys can rebound and dunk easily. They dont practice at all they are just big fast and strong. Then you have the team of short guys who practice all the time work on their plays and their shots. The black guys demolish them anyways. This is very similar to someone with high APM that isn't very smart owning a smarter but way slower opponent. It's just the way the games work and it's very comparable. Thats why basketball has different leagues and levels so that the teams competing against eachother are around the same level and we have good entertaining games. The same is in starcraft. We have foreigner tournaments (well used to its died out except wcg mostly unless you count online stuff)...we have tournaments like Courage in Korea for amateurs...different qualifying leagues all the way up to the Starleague.
Making Starcraft less APM needy would be like taking the hoop down to 4 feet so short people have a chance in basketball.
Simpleton.
|
Will there be scripts or something like that for the StarCraft class? I would really love to get a little bit more detail on the stuff that you discussed last week. I read Sirlins Blog and it is good, but i want moooooore
|
-_- my brother doesn't/can't send me because he doesn't know how I'll get in in the first place and also because his SC isn't working on his computer atm so he is fixing that 
|
|
|
just started watching this...
Thank you soo much for posting this!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
