EPTThe trouble with leaving the noobs to their own devices is that they are exactly the type of people who probably wouldn't fire up starcraft just to learn all of the unit's stats, and actually wouldn't care too much to get better at the game. Unfortunately, the class isn't designed for those people.
UC Berkeley Starcraft Class - Page 21
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
TSL-Lore
United States412 Posts
The trouble with leaving the noobs to their own devices is that they are exactly the type of people who probably wouldn't fire up starcraft just to learn all of the unit's stats, and actually wouldn't care too much to get better at the game. Unfortunately, the class isn't designed for those people. | ||
|
Nimue
United States34 Posts
| ||
|
Wasabi
United States3085 Posts
| ||
|
TSL-Lore
United States412 Posts
On February 13 2009 04:42 Wasabi wrote: If the staff could handle it or more people are willing to teach a new course and call it Introduction to Starcraft. It could be even distributed online to attract more people into the main course and perhaps have them buy a supplementary book to go with it, much like how other universities give out "free" online courses (and sucker them into buying the book :p). Haha, i don't think there's ever been a DeCal at UC Berkeley that has an introduction to it's course that is ALSO a DeCal. That would be pretty cool though. | ||
|
Nimue
United States34 Posts
On February 13 2009 07:39 TSL-Lore wrote: Haha, i don't think there's ever been a DeCal at UC Berkeley that has an introduction to it's course that is ALSO a DeCal. That would be pretty cool though. intro to chess + chess intro to cubing + cubing however, intro to starcraft definitely will not get passed by the sponsors ... seriously, lack of depth and rigorousness. | ||
|
raohthekenoh
United States2 Posts
I think things like MBS are good things though, reducing redundant actions will only make good players better in the long run. and if putting in MBS reduces the best of players to the chaff then maybe Starcraft wasn't as good a game as you thought in the beginning. The real problem is that you would need to find a balance between the number of clicks required to get a positive return. you'd not be happy if every time you sent your miners to gather resources, you THEN had to order them to drop it off at the base, and then go back out to the mineral deposits to get more minerals. But the player who could do that and still play the game would certainly be the best of SC players right? I guess it's all looking at where to draw the line rather than a strict right or wrong idea. Although I'd hate for SC to become something like Smash brothers so maybe i'm completely wrong. | ||
|
gravity
Australia1988 Posts
On February 07 2009 04:44 TSL-Lore wrote: Yeah, I agree with Error Ash. I actually had a discussion with him in comments on his Week 1 blog and it didn't end well, but I never resorted to name calling. He actually called me a jackass and started to ignore me because I made a comment on how the companies Apple and Google shouldn't make the user interface for Starcraft, but that Blizzard should. Not sure why he took that so personally. He definitely thinks he is always right though... very annoying. He called you a jackass because you were being a jackass. That was a stupid comment, reminiscent of the average teenage 'tard trying to debate anything and thinking they're 10x cleverer than they really are. If you had a real argument you wouldn't have to resort to such sophistry. In general, I don't think Sirlin is 100% right (especially in his desire to cap the useful actions-per-minute possible), but he's a smart person and many of the arguments against him amount to appeals to emotion, appeals to tradition, or argument from ridicule. | ||
|
lac29
United States1485 Posts
| ||
jhNz
Germany2762 Posts
| ||
|
Schrodinger
Spain10 Posts
| ||
|
Error Ash
Germany177 Posts
On February 17 2009 01:43 Schrodinger wrote: BTW, weeks past away and there's no new videos or sinopsis, so what's going on? :-( Yea, whats up? | ||
|
Zalfor
United States1035 Posts
| ||
|
Schrodinger
Spain10 Posts
| ||
Last Romantic
United States20661 Posts
On February 13 2009 07:48 Nimue wrote: intro to chess + chess intro to cubing + cubing however, intro to starcraft definitely will not get passed by the sponsors ... seriously, lack of depth and rigorousness. Cubing is so awesome. I would take a Go/Baduk DeCal, I think. Abstract strategy is so... cool. | ||
|
Scaramanga
Australia8091 Posts
On February 14 2009 05:39 raohthekenoh wrote: well I play more fighting games than Star Craft so I suppose what I say may not make sense or be accurate to the situation. What Sirlin is saying, Or trying to say at least, is that a strategy game is basically a battle of wits, we just use the game as sort of an intermediary to find out whoever is better ( which is true, although I won't disagree that I find him an annoying person). I think things like MBS are good things though, reducing redundant actions will only make good players better in the long run. and if putting in MBS reduces the best of players to the chaff then maybe Starcraft wasn't as good a game as you thought in the beginning. The real problem is that you would need to find a balance between the number of clicks required to get a positive return. you'd not be happy if every time you sent your miners to gather resources, you THEN had to order them to drop it off at the base, and then go back out to the mineral deposits to get more minerals. But the player who could do that and still play the game would certainly be the best of SC players right? I guess it's all looking at where to draw the line rather than a strict right or wrong idea. Although I'd hate for SC to become something like Smash brothers so maybe i'm completely wrong. I thought i'd point out where you went wrong and where you went right. Read what other people have said in this thread and you will find out why your wrong just a quick question if starcraft wasnt as good a game as you thought then why is it the most watched and played game today? after ten years? | ||
|
Moletrap
United States1297 Posts
On February 17 2009 21:39 Scaramanga wrote: I thought i'd point out where you went wrong and where you went right. Read what other people have said in this thread and you will find out why your wrong just a quick question if starcraft wasnt as good a game as you thought then why is it the most watched and played game today? after ten years? Read what other people have said in this thread about STFU ABOUT THAT. Anyway, hopefully if people are going to the labs.. maybe that would be a good time for them to play around and learn the basics. | ||
|
Schrodinger
Spain10 Posts
I AM HUNGRY OF SC THEORY !! | ||
|
Error Ash
Germany177 Posts
On February 17 2009 14:14 Zalfor wrote: we're having difficulty finding a server for the videos // actually getting the videos done. Why not use Youtube? And what do you mean by "getting the videos done" ? If you have recorded the lesson then it shouldn't be a problem to upload them, no? And if you need help i am sure there will be plenty of guys with experience on video editing in this forum  | ||
|
raohthekenoh
United States2 Posts
On February 17 2009 21:39 Scaramanga wrote: I thought i'd point out where you went wrong and where you went right. Read what other people have said in this thread and you will find out why your wrong just a quick question if starcraft wasnt as good a game as you thought then why is it the most watched and played game today? after ten years? well if you had read what I said I didn't say starcraft wasn't as good a game as I thought it was (you have no idea what I think of SC) I was simply saying that if you put in MBS and a bunch of really good players aren't so good anymore, then the game probably didn't have as much depth as you thought it did. People still play and watch Smash Brothers Melee stuff and it's been... about 8 years now, and people still watch Super Turbo Matches and it's been around for OVER 10 years. I don't really think time makes it into a good game automatically. And that's not to say that it's not a good game, that is to say that if your only argument that it is good is that lots of people play it, that's a pretty crummy argument. Even if only 2 people played SC, it wouldn't make it a bad game, it may be the most technically deep and wonderful game in the world but just not played enough. Most people who trash things like MBS do it completely arbitrarily because thats what the good players tell them, or people they think are good players tell them. Like I said, you wouldn't want to manually control all your units to mine minerals and then manually move them back to base, but if you could do that and still build up your army you'd really be a great player at SC. I wouldn't want the computer to do everything for me, but when it's something as trivial as putting units on the board, I'd like the convenience of being able to build from them simultaneously and setting rally points. If they removed the "unnecessary clicking" from the game I don't think the pros would just suddenly be unseated. Strategy continues to evolve, and knowing a strategy, and knowing how to precisely input a strategy are two different things entirely and what is probably what really separates pros and everyone else. if some Monster APM player finds that he can't compete in SC2 at all, then he really wasn't implementing the strategy part of the strategy game. APM should be a huge asset in combat, in base building, I'd err on the side of convenience. Wow and I said all that without even being rude to you. | ||
|
Schrodinger
Spain10 Posts
| ||
| ||
