EPTWhich is pretty much all we need o_O
Ingame - Worker count - Page 6
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
Which is pretty much all we need o_O | ||
|
lurked
Canada918 Posts
So I'll throw a witty insult at the OP so that way he feels like a noob, asking for that kind of mechanics simplification, instead of simply moving along. Now that 5pages of people answered the same way as I did, I feel really awesome, now I'll go and look at how many useless spamming posts / day I have on average. - That being said, I don't agree at all with the OP, as there are already several means to count them, as a lot of people pointed in this thread. However, I obviously don't agree with the way that a lot of people posted the info, but hey... We're on the internet... What am I expecting... A civilized discussion? Yeah, right... | ||
|
me_viet
Australia1350 Posts
On July 14 2011 00:00 Gurblechev wrote: It's probably because they are afraid that on equal footing with their opponent they will lose, so they want interface impediments that require practice to overcome. This rewards them simply for practicing, rather than being intelligent or creative. Holy shit, you're going to fail at life if you think you can excel at anything with no practice. | ||
|
Gurblechev
188 Posts
On July 14 2011 00:07 me_viet wrote: Holy shit, you're going to fail at life if you think you can excel at anything with no practice. I'd prefer practicing reacting to unpredictable human opponents, rather than practicing overcoming perfectly predictable interface impediments. If you are scared of unpredictable thinking human opponents I can see why you would prefer that the game be heavily weighted towards dealing with the predictable and consistent interface. | ||
|
clusen
Germany8702 Posts
On July 14 2011 00:00 Gurblechev wrote: It's probably because they are afraid that on equal footing with their opponent they will lose, so they want interface impediments that require practice to overcome. This rewards them simply for practicing, rather than being intelligent or creative. People who are willing to practice such things(aka they were smart and creative enough in the first place to realize how to do it) would be the first ones to make use of the freed up apm and improve their micro or whatever, and still crush you. I got this great idea for a game you would love: Let's remove all execution, that is just for stupid robots. Everyone just writes a script beforehand and then we have 2 computer executing it flawlessly - the better strategy wins! To make it less boring to play(aka watch) everytime you click somewhere a random explosion (or boobs for the older ones) appear and do terrible terrible damage. Perfect strategy game, isn't it? | ||
|
EaryKing
Bulgaria158 Posts
| ||
|
Gurblechev
188 Posts
On July 14 2011 00:17 clusen wrote: People who are willing to practice such things(aka they were smart and creative enough in the first place to realize how to do it) would be the first ones to make use of the freed up apm and improve their micro or whatever, and still crush you. I got this great idea for a game you would love: Let's remove all execution, that is just for stupid robots. Everyone just writes a script beforehand and then we have 2 computer executing it flawlessly - the better strategy wins! To make it less boring to play(aka watch) everytime you click somewhere a random explosion (or boobs for the older ones) appear and do terrible terrible damage. Perfect strategy game, isn't it? Well the thing is we still can't write AI that is smarter than a human, so someone who wrote their script to give themselves a degree of control would win. But yes generally any repetitive easily scriptable task should be removed to get closer to actual strategy. Also trying to describe sending every worker to mine or control clicking your workers and setting them to a hotkey as "smart and creative" is just completely asinine and shows how you have no leg to stand on. The reason some people prefer these interface impediments be a large part of the game is because they are completely predictable and this predictability gives them a degree of comfort. | ||
|
me_viet
Australia1350 Posts
On July 14 2011 00:10 Gurblechev wrote: I'd prefer practicing reacting to unpredictable human opponents, rather than practicing overcoming perfectly predictable interface impediments. If you are scared of unpredictable thinking human opponents I can see why you would prefer that the game be heavily weighted towards dealing with the predictable and consistent interface. Sorry, to continue this argument i need to understand what you mean by 'practicing reacting to unpredictable human opponents'. Because you can't 'practice a reaction' you just know that in certain scenarios there are certain solutions that are optimal, if you don't, you make a [H] thread on TL after using the search bar. | ||
|
Gurblechev
188 Posts
On July 14 2011 00:21 EaryKing wrote: why not you play turn base strategy game, no multitasking needed. Because that takes away the part where you react to your opponent in real time. Having to think and react quickly are fun. Sending workers to mine requires no thinking and does not involve reacting to your opponent. It makes the game more like two player guitar hero where you are just repeating the same repetitive timings and whoever has better rhythm and timing gets a higher score. | ||
|
-Frog-
United States514 Posts
On July 14 2011 00:26 Gurblechev wrote: Well the thing is we still can't write AI that is smarter than a human, so someone who wrote their script to give themselves a degree of control would win. But yes generally any repetitive easily scriptable task should be removed to get closer to actual strategy. Also trying to describe sending every worker to mine or control clicking your workers and setting them to a hotkey as "smart and creative" is just completely asinine and shows how you have no leg to stand on. The reason some people prefer these interface impediments be a large part of the game is because they are completely predictable and this predictability gives them a degree of comfort. When my stalkers are fighting versus marines it's obvious that I want to have them shoot, move away from the marines and then shoot again. This is called stutter step micro. There really isn't any decision making involved here, there's only one thing I want the stalkers to do. Can we have an option to "autocast" stutter step micro? I feel like this would give me more time to think about which units I want to produce and where I want to send them. If that were the case then I feel like I could use my intelligence and strategy to overcome my opponent rather than having to worry about doing the same repetitive task over and over again just to kill some marines. a | ||
|
Apolo
Portugal1259 Posts
To all those that say it makes the game easy, that kind of reasoning you're following could be applied to everything about the game until you had to manually click each harvester to return minerals, order each unit to attack, and so on. It's a stupid reasoning, and makes no sense. So yes, just like many UI improvements such as addition of time, auto mining, coutrol groups, and so forth, this makes all the sense, and would just displease those that aren't thinking correctly. | ||
|
Barbiero
Brazil5259 Posts
| ||
|
Gurblechev
188 Posts
On July 14 2011 00:28 me_viet wrote: Sorry, to continue this argument i need to understand what you mean by 'practicing reacting to unpredictable human opponents'. Because you can't 'practice a reaction' you just know that in certain scenarios there are certain solutions that are optimal, if you don't, you make a [H] thread on TL after using the search bar. You can indeed practice reacting to what human opponents do. If you have been in a certain situation before you have a better idea of how to deal with it. | ||
|
TheResidentEvil
United States991 Posts
| ||
|
Gurblechev
188 Posts
On July 14 2011 00:30 -Frog- wrote: When my stalkers are fighting versus marines it's obvious that I want to have them shoot, move away from the marines and then shoot again. This is called stutter step micro. There really isn't any decision making involved here, there's only one thing I want the stalkers to do. Can we have an option to "autocast" stutter step micro? I feel like this would give me more time to think about which units I want to produce and where I want to send them. If that were the case then I feel like I could use my intelligence and strategy to overcome my opponent rather than having to worry about doing the same repetitive task over and over again just to kill some marines. a But you're wrong. It involves taking in the layout of the map, where the enemies units are, whether that is his whole army or if you could be flanked, etc. It involves a lot of variables where a human would perform a lot better than an AI. | ||
|
flodeskum
Iceland1267 Posts
| ||
|
-Frog-
United States514 Posts
On July 14 2011 00:36 Gurblechev wrote: But you're wrong. It involves taking in the layout of the map, where the enemies units are, whether that is his whole army or if you could be flanked, etc. It involves a lot of variables where a human would perform a lot better than an AI. Understood. But once I've identified a path I want my stalkers to micro along can't I just set autocast? When the marines change course or an obstacle is in my path can't I just move the stalkers with a single click and then set autocast again? Why do I have to constantly click behind them and then click on a marine or attack move on the ground? What's the purpose in constantly clicking once I've ordered my stalkers to begin stutter step microing. I've made my strategical decision: stutter step micro along this path. If the path becomes inefficient I can quickly change the path and set autocast again. Maybe the AI can be improved so that my stalkers won't constantly try and back up into a wall. OBVIOUSLY I don't want them to do that. So once i've made my decision to engage and stutter step why should I be responsible for anything else? | ||
|
TheResidentEvil
United States991 Posts
| ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On July 13 2011 20:21 ODKStevez wrote: I fully support the idea. The UI should offer to display the worker supply and unit supply instead of (or in addition to) to total used supply.I was wondering about an idea last night and I thought I would post it here to get a few opinions. We all know there is an idle worker UI mechanic within the game already, but I was wondering, (especially as I am a zerg player), how it would be really useful to have a worker count too, one that would show how many workers you have at that time. As a Zerg I have major problems stopping at 70-80 drones and I think this would be a great help. What do you guys think of this idea? Do you think it would be accepted if it was to happen? And how would it affect pro games ect? | ||
|
Gurblechev
188 Posts
On July 14 2011 00:39 -Frog- wrote: Understood. But once I've identified a path I want my stalkers to micro along can't I just set autocast? When the marines change course or an obstacle is in my path can't I just move the stalkers with a single click and then set autocast again? Why do I have to constantly click behind them and then click on a marine or attack move on the ground? What's the purpose in constantly clicking once I've ordered my stalkers to begin stutter step microing. I've made my strategical decision: stutter step micro along this path. If the path becomes inefficient I can quickly change the path and set autocast again. Maybe the AI can be improved so that my stalkers won't constantly try and back up into a wall. OBVIOUSLY I don't want them to do that. So once i've made my decision to engage and stutter step why should I be responsible for anything else? Sure. Being able to waypoint or queue that sort of thing up wouldn't bother me at all. Like I said I prefer real time strategy over rhythm and timing. Taking away things that are just mindless repetitive clicking is good. But you can't make it too automated or you have not helped but actually hurt the strategy aspects. Someone with finer grained control over their units could abuse your unthinking automation by herding your units somewhere that a human would have known was a trap. | ||
| ||
