|
And that skill takes hours of practice to master just like it takes hours of practice to master the multitasking required to build units, supply structures, buildings, control your army, scout and check your worker saturation constantly. If all I have to do is check a counter to see how many workers I have then you've removed an element of what is required to be good at multitasking in SC2 and you've made it easier to reach the skill cap.
I don't believe that adding the counter will break the game - not even close - but when you start adding features like this they will eventually add up so that the game becomes easier to master.
Strategy is of course vital to your success in SC2 and it requires you to be creative and intelligent; not to mention the countless hours of practice and brainstorming required to have good strategy. But mastering multitasking also requires you to be highly intelligent and to have a powerful enough mind to juggle many tasks at once and decide which ones are the most important at the moment.
Watching a player that is able to multitask well is one of the most impressive things for a spectator and makes the game a pleasure to watch. That's why in Broodwar when you'd see a pro with no idle workers, never being supply capped, constantly attacking and defending and moving around the map it was so impressive. I'm not saying we need to take away automine but I do believe we should keep as many multitasking elements in the game as we can to make it more enjoyable for a spectator and to keep the skill cap high so the game has longevity.
|
On July 14 2011 00:48 -Frog- wrote:
And that skill takes hours of practice to master just like it takes hours of practice to master the multitasking required to build units, supply structures, buildings, control your army, scout and check your worker saturation constantly. If all I have to do is check a counter to see how many workers I have then you've removed an element of what is required to be good at multitasking in SC2 and you've made it easier to reach the skill cap.
I don't believe that adding the counter will break the game - not even close - but when you start adding features like this they will eventually add up so that the game becomes easier to master.
Strategy is of course vital to your success in SC2 and it requires you to be creative and intelligent; not to mention the countless hours of practice and brainstorming required to have good strategy. But mastering multitasking also requires you to be highly intelligent and to have a powerful enough mind to juggle many tasks at once and decide which ones are the most important at the moment.
Watching a player that is able to multitask well is one of the most impressive things for a spectator and makes the game a pleasure to watch. That's why in Broodwar when you'd see a pro with no idle workers, never being supply capped, constantly attacking and defending and moving around the map it was so impressive. I'm not saying we need to take away automine but I do believe we should keep as many multitasking elements in the game as we can to make it more enjoyable for a spectator and to keep the skill cap high so the game has longevity.
Do you feel chess is easy to master? There are no interface impediments in chess.
|
On July 14 2011 00:51 Gurblechev wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 00:48 -Frog- wrote:
And that skill takes hours of practice to master just like it takes hours of practice to master the multitasking required to build units, supply structures, buildings, control your army, scout and check your worker saturation constantly. If all I have to do is check a counter to see how many workers I have then you've removed an element of what is required to be good at multitasking in SC2 and you've made it easier to reach the skill cap.
I don't believe that adding the counter will break the game - not even close - but when you start adding features like this they will eventually add up so that the game becomes easier to master.
Strategy is of course vital to your success in SC2 and it requires you to be creative and intelligent; not to mention the countless hours of practice and brainstorming required to have good strategy. But mastering multitasking also requires you to be highly intelligent and to have a powerful enough mind to juggle many tasks at once and decide which ones are the most important at the moment.
Watching a player that is able to multitask well is one of the most impressive things for a spectator and makes the game a pleasure to watch. That's why in Broodwar when you'd see a pro with no idle workers, never being supply capped, constantly attacking and defending and moving around the map it was so impressive. I'm not saying we need to take away automine but I do believe we should keep as many multitasking elements in the game as we can to make it more enjoyable for a spectator and to keep the skill cap high so the game has longevity. Do you feel chess is easy to master? There are no interface impediments in chess.
errr... different genre of games, Chess isn't real-time. Play the new Heroes of Might and Magic if you want turn base. No Interface impediment there.
|
Essentially, this is a continuation to the of geyser worker count. People thought geysers shouldnt show worker count because it was an indication of skill, but tbh it was just an interface impediment. Starcraft skill shouldnt be fighting the interface, it should be everything else.
|
Group all workers, and look at the number 
|
The easiest way to tell if something requires skill or not is to compare it to a pro doing it. If me and MC were doing stutter step micro against marines, will I be able to do it as well as him? Hell no. I can count my workers just as well as MC. He isn't any better than me at it.
Things like this are GOOD for starcraft 2. How many times have you watched a game where a person isn't looking at his army and it gets attacked? He is too busy with asinine things like counting workers. It isn't skill on the other player that he happened to attack when the guy wasn't looking.
Freeing up APM is great for sc2. Army control is such a huge part of this game. I can see MC do things with his army that I would die with the same army in seconds. Look at micro bot. It uses an APM of like 1000 to do amazing things. Macro in SC2 is not like SC1. You can't just focus on macro and win the game because its not like BW. Macro in BW was so many little things added up that it could win you the game. SC2 has a lot more to do with army control.
|
On July 14 2011 00:57 Sueco wrote:
Essentially, this is a continuation to the of geyser worker count. People thought geysers shouldnt show worker count because it was an indication of skill, but tbh it was just an interface impediment. Starcraft skill shouldnt be fighting the interface, it should be everything else.
It was because it was very hard to spot if you had more than 3 workers due to the way they stack on geysers.
It isn't hard to see when your mineral line is oversaturated.
|
On July 14 2011 00:51 Gurblechev wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 00:48 -Frog- wrote:
And that skill takes hours of practice to master just like it takes hours of practice to master the multitasking required to build units, supply structures, buildings, control your army, scout and check your worker saturation constantly. If all I have to do is check a counter to see how many workers I have then you've removed an element of what is required to be good at multitasking in SC2 and you've made it easier to reach the skill cap.
I don't believe that adding the counter will break the game - not even close - but when you start adding features like this they will eventually add up so that the game becomes easier to master.
Strategy is of course vital to your success in SC2 and it requires you to be creative and intelligent; not to mention the countless hours of practice and brainstorming required to have good strategy. But mastering multitasking also requires you to be highly intelligent and to have a powerful enough mind to juggle many tasks at once and decide which ones are the most important at the moment.
Watching a player that is able to multitask well is one of the most impressive things for a spectator and makes the game a pleasure to watch. That's why in Broodwar when you'd see a pro with no idle workers, never being supply capped, constantly attacking and defending and moving around the map it was so impressive. I'm not saying we need to take away automine but I do believe we should keep as many multitasking elements in the game as we can to make it more enjoyable for a spectator and to keep the skill cap high so the game has longevity. Do you feel chess is easy to master? There are no interface impediments in chess.
No. However there are no multitasking elements in chess in the first place so it's a moot point. Starcraft is a game that requires you to be intelligent enough to create diverse strategies to be able to make quick decisions. It is also a game that requires you to be intelligent enough to do all of the above while managing your units and economy.
I understand "I don't want to fight against the interface" argument but at the same time we need the interface to be inefficient so that players can be differentiated from each other in more ways than strategy.
|
"We need the interface to be inefficient." You can't argue with that.
|
On July 14 2011 00:05 JinDesu wrote:
Is there even a discussion here anymore? As far as I can tell, everyone is saying "select your workers, add to control group, look at number in control group"
Which is pretty much all we need o_O
That's exactly what we need!
|
On July 14 2011 00:59 TheResidentEvil wrote:I can count my workers just as well as MC. He isn't any better than me at it.
Of course you can count just as well as MC. However you can't count as quickly as he can and you can't count as well as him while other tasks require your attention. That makes him better than you and it makes him an exciting and interesting player to watch.
Of course it's a small part of why he's interesting to watch and why he's good but it IS relevant and if multitasking elements like keeping track of your worker count are removed then they will add up eventually.
|
Northern Ireland2557 Posts
you should select all your workers and subtract 2 since 2 are always in a geyser, IdrA does this all the time on his stream to know when to cut workers or how much upgrades/tech/production he can support
|
On July 14 2011 00:26 Gurblechev wrote:
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.
I didn't describe the clicking itself as smart or creative, but the fact that people figured out how to do it in a effective manner. It doesn't need much apm or training, it is an easy thing to do once you know how.
People were so smart to realize what they have to do to become better and came up with ways to do it. Something that is impossible in your small world, because everyone with good mechanics seems to be a stupid, uncreative robot according to your posts. And that is basically the only argument you have, which is pretty sad.
|
On July 14 2011 01:02 -Frog- wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 00:51 Gurblechev wrote:On July 14 2011 00:48 -Frog- wrote:
And that skill takes hours of practice to master just like it takes hours of practice to master the multitasking required to build units, supply structures, buildings, control your army, scout and check your worker saturation constantly. If all I have to do is check a counter to see how many workers I have then you've removed an element of what is required to be good at multitasking in SC2 and you've made it easier to reach the skill cap.
I don't believe that adding the counter will break the game - not even close - but when you start adding features like this they will eventually add up so that the game becomes easier to master.
Strategy is of course vital to your success in SC2 and it requires you to be creative and intelligent; not to mention the countless hours of practice and brainstorming required to have good strategy. But mastering multitasking also requires you to be highly intelligent and to have a powerful enough mind to juggle many tasks at once and decide which ones are the most important at the moment.
Watching a player that is able to multitask well is one of the most impressive things for a spectator and makes the game a pleasure to watch. That's why in Broodwar when you'd see a pro with no idle workers, never being supply capped, constantly attacking and defending and moving around the map it was so impressive. I'm not saying we need to take away automine but I do believe we should keep as many multitasking elements in the game as we can to make it more enjoyable for a spectator and to keep the skill cap high so the game has longevity. Do you feel chess is easy to master? There are no interface impediments in chess. No. However there are no multitasking elements in chess in the first place so it's a moot point. Starcraft is a game that requires you to be intelligent enough to create diverse strategies to be able to make quick decisions. It is also a game that requires you to be intelligent enough to do all of the above while managing your units and economy. I understand "I don't want to fight against the interface" argument but at the same time we need the interface to be inefficient so that players can be differentiated from each other in more ways than strategy.
I disagree. My point with chess is that it is a pure strategy game and pure strategy games have a lot of depth and are difficult to master because you are fighting an intelligent opponent rather than a predictable interface. Removing interface impediments to let the strategy aspects shine through in no way at all "dumbs the game down", or makes it "easy to master" or any nonsense reasoning like that.
I would prefer to see professional players showcase their multitasking in the form of strategy elements, like multi pronged attacks, attacking and defending at the same time, attacking while adding tech and altering their unit composition, etc.
I don't think that rhythm and timing elements improve the game at all, as I prefer real time strategy games over rhythm and timing games. If I wanted to see impressive repetitive clicking I would watch people play Guitar Hero.
And of course this is just my opinion. Some people may prefer rhythm and timing aspects. That is fine if that is what they like. But I like real time strategy and I would like Starcraft to focus on real time strategy since that is the genre it claims to be.
|
On July 13 2011 23:56 Sueco wrote:
Hey you know what we should do to make the game require even more skill? REMOVE THE SUPPLY COUNTER, that way only people that can count and click at inhuman speed are ever going to be able to be good at it, and the rest of us will be reduced to watching in awe.
Tbh, I don't understand why people seem to think that limiting the information given to the player makes for better gameplay.
Fog of war is limiting information. Should we remove it as well?
Hiding the production / unit / income tab is hiding/limiting information. Should be accesable during the game by the players.
About "only strategic decisions should be relevant not stupid clicking mechanics".
I'd love to be able to tell my Immortals to only shoot at armored units. I'd love to tell my Banshees to kill marines without taking damage. I'd love to tell my individual roaches when to burrow so they avoid dieing. I'd love to tell my marines to do a perfect split when the banelings start to roll.
I'd love to tell my Nexus/CC that it should constantly produce workers until I tell it to stop.
I'd love to tell my rax/warpgates/robo/.... what unit it should build and have it constantly producing.
See - I can make ridiculous statements as well!
There needs to be a certain mechanical difficulty in the game. Or it would become very boring to watch for the majority of people (people want to see goals in football - not static defense lines).
I personally dont see the need for a worker count. Shift-Click all workers. Each full page has 24 workers. For a strategic genius it should be really easy to see how many workers he has if it's easy for me. 3*24 isnt really high math 
On July 14 2011 01:16 Gurblechev wrote:
I would prefer to see professional players showcase their multitasking in the form of strategy elements, like multi pronged attacks, attacking and defending at the same time, attacking while adding tech and altering their unit composition, etc.
Sorry to take you as an example
Isnt the strategic decision "I want to do a multipronged attack". So wouldnt be an interface a better solution if it would have the ability to say "At <time> you attack here, you attack over there, and you attack there". All this while microing perfectly.
It would remove the mechanical requirement and leave only the strategy.
That's basically how you sound like :/ (even if you mean something different)
|
On July 14 2011 01:02 -Frog- wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 00:51 Gurblechev wrote:On July 14 2011 00:48 -Frog- wrote:
And that skill takes hours of practice to master just like it takes hours of practice to master the multitasking required to build units, supply structures, buildings, control your army, scout and check your worker saturation constantly. If all I have to do is check a counter to see how many workers I have then you've removed an element of what is required to be good at multitasking in SC2 and you've made it easier to reach the skill cap.
I don't believe that adding the counter will break the game - not even close - but when you start adding features like this they will eventually add up so that the game becomes easier to master.
Strategy is of course vital to your success in SC2 and it requires you to be creative and intelligent; not to mention the countless hours of practice and brainstorming required to have good strategy. But mastering multitasking also requires you to be highly intelligent and to have a powerful enough mind to juggle many tasks at once and decide which ones are the most important at the moment.
Watching a player that is able to multitask well is one of the most impressive things for a spectator and makes the game a pleasure to watch. That's why in Broodwar when you'd see a pro with no idle workers, never being supply capped, constantly attacking and defending and moving around the map it was so impressive. I'm not saying we need to take away automine but I do believe we should keep as many multitasking elements in the game as we can to make it more enjoyable for a spectator and to keep the skill cap high so the game has longevity. Do you feel chess is easy to master? There are no interface impediments in chess. No. However there are no multitasking elements in chess in the first place so it's a moot point. Starcraft is a game that requires you to be intelligent enough to create diverse strategies to be able to make quick decisions. It is also a game that requires you to be intelligent enough to do all of the above while managing your units and economy. I understand "I don't want to fight against the interface" argument but at the same time we need the interface to be inefficient so that players can be differentiated from each other in more ways than strategy.
Why do we need players to be differentiated from each other in more ways than strategy?
|
On July 13 2011 20:37 iMp.will. wrote:
Like automining aint enough. Lets ruin the game even more.
Yeah you are right. Making people do exhausting, stupid and repetitive stuff is the way to improve a game.
|
On July 14 2011 01:24 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 23:56 Sueco wrote:
Hey you know what we should do to make the game require even more skill? REMOVE THE SUPPLY COUNTER, that way only people that can count and click at inhuman speed are ever going to be able to be good at it, and the rest of us will be reduced to watching in awe.
Tbh, I don't understand why people seem to think that limiting the information given to the player makes for better gameplay. Fog of war is limiting information. Should we remove it as well? Hiding the production / unit / income tab is hiding/limiting information. Should be accesable during the game by the players. About "only strategic decisions should be relevant not stupid clicking mechanics". I'd love to be able to tell my Immortals to only shoot at armored units. I'd love to tell my Banshees to kill marines without taking damage. I'd love to tell my individual roaches when to burrow so they avoid dieing. I'd love to tell my marines to do a perfect split when the banelings start to roll. I'd love to tell my Nexus/CC that it should constantly produce workers until I tell it to stop. I'd love to tell my rax/warpgates/robo/.... what unit it should build and have it constantly producing. See - I can make ridiculous statements as well! There needs to be a certain mechanical difficulty in the game. Or it would become very boring to watch for the majority of people (people want to see goals in football - not static defense lines). I personally dont see the need for a worker count. Shift-Click all workers. Each full page has 24 workers. For a strategic genius it should be really easy to see how many workers he has if it's easy for me. 3*24 isnt really high math Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 01:16 Gurblechev wrote:
I would prefer to see professional players showcase their multitasking in the form of strategy elements, like multi pronged attacks, attacking and defending at the same time, attacking while adding tech and altering their unit composition, etc. Sorry to take you as an example Isnt the strategic decision "I want to do a multipronged attack". So wouldnt be an interface a better solution if it would have the ability to say "At <time> you attack here, you attack over there, and you attack there". All this while microing perfectly. It would remove the mechanical requirement and leave only the strategy. That's basically how you sound like :/ (even if you mean something different)
AI is not that advanced. A human with finer grained control will be able to execute that better or take advantage of flaws in your AI to crush your attack.
I have never claimed it should be AI vs AI. Simply that adding artificial impediments to having the humans showcase their own intelligence and creativity is not interesting to me. Sending your worker to mine when it pops out requires no intelligence, just timing and rhythmic repetition.
|
On July 14 2011 01:33 Gurblechev wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 01:24 Zocat wrote:On July 13 2011 23:56 Sueco wrote:
Hey you know what we should do to make the game require even more skill? REMOVE THE SUPPLY COUNTER, that way only people that can count and click at inhuman speed are ever going to be able to be good at it, and the rest of us will be reduced to watching in awe.
Tbh, I don't understand why people seem to think that limiting the information given to the player makes for better gameplay. Fog of war is limiting information. Should we remove it as well? Hiding the production / unit / income tab is hiding/limiting information. Should be accesable during the game by the players. About "only strategic decisions should be relevant not stupid clicking mechanics". I'd love to be able to tell my Immortals to only shoot at armored units. I'd love to tell my Banshees to kill marines without taking damage. I'd love to tell my individual roaches when to burrow so they avoid dieing. I'd love to tell my marines to do a perfect split when the banelings start to roll. I'd love to tell my Nexus/CC that it should constantly produce workers until I tell it to stop. I'd love to tell my rax/warpgates/robo/.... what unit it should build and have it constantly producing. See - I can make ridiculous statements as well! There needs to be a certain mechanical difficulty in the game. Or it would become very boring to watch for the majority of people (people want to see goals in football - not static defense lines). I personally dont see the need for a worker count. Shift-Click all workers. Each full page has 24 workers. For a strategic genius it should be really easy to see how many workers he has if it's easy for me. 3*24 isnt really high math On July 14 2011 01:16 Gurblechev wrote:
I would prefer to see professional players showcase their multitasking in the form of strategy elements, like multi pronged attacks, attacking and defending at the same time, attacking while adding tech and altering their unit composition, etc. Sorry to take you as an example Isnt the strategic decision "I want to do a multipronged attack". So wouldnt be an interface a better solution if it would have the ability to say "At <time> you attack here, you attack over there, and you attack there". All this while microing perfectly. It would remove the mechanical requirement and leave only the strategy. That's basically how you sound like :/ (even if you mean something different) AI is not that advanced. A human with finer grained control will be able to execute that better or take advantage of flaws in your AI to crush your attack. I have never claimed it should be AI vs AI. Simply that adding artificial impediments to having the humans showcase their own intelligence and creativity is not interesting to me. Sending your worker to mine when it pops out requires no intelligence, just timing and rhythmic repetition.
Where did I mention AI?
Telling my unit to attack unit X instead of Y is not AI. It's just a stupid mechanic like sending my workers to mine. I just fail at clicking and an option to tell my unit prior to the battle to combat specific units would help me to concentrate more on the strategic aspect of the game.
How can a human take advantage of the option "If you have blink, blink back as soon as your shields are down"? Or "if you're about to die from the next shot - burrow!".
Attacking at the same time is also no AI. It would just be issuing a "wait" command to the unit. Multipronged attacks are just mechanical difficult. My strategic decision is "I want you A to attack at time X, you B attack at time X and you C atttack at time X".
I'm only limited by my poor multitasking.
I also fail to see how "AI is not that advanced." is an argument. First of all - AI is advanced enough for this (see the Automaton 2000 micro vids). So perfect micro is possible.
It also sounds like if AI would be advanced enough you would agree with me?
|
On July 14 2011 01:30 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 01:02 -Frog- wrote:On July 14 2011 00:51 Gurblechev wrote:On July 14 2011 00:48 -Frog- wrote:
And that skill takes hours of practice to master just like it takes hours of practice to master the multitasking required to build units, supply structures, buildings, control your army, scout and check your worker saturation constantly. If all I have to do is check a counter to see how many workers I have then you've removed an element of what is required to be good at multitasking in SC2 and you've made it easier to reach the skill cap.
I don't believe that adding the counter will break the game - not even close - but when you start adding features like this they will eventually add up so that the game becomes easier to master.
Strategy is of course vital to your success in SC2 and it requires you to be creative and intelligent; not to mention the countless hours of practice and brainstorming required to have good strategy. But mastering multitasking also requires you to be highly intelligent and to have a powerful enough mind to juggle many tasks at once and decide which ones are the most important at the moment.
Watching a player that is able to multitask well is one of the most impressive things for a spectator and makes the game a pleasure to watch. That's why in Broodwar when you'd see a pro with no idle workers, never being supply capped, constantly attacking and defending and moving around the map it was so impressive. I'm not saying we need to take away automine but I do believe we should keep as many multitasking elements in the game as we can to make it more enjoyable for a spectator and to keep the skill cap high so the game has longevity. Do you feel chess is easy to master? There are no interface impediments in chess. No. However there are no multitasking elements in chess in the first place so it's a moot point. Starcraft is a game that requires you to be intelligent enough to create diverse strategies to be able to make quick decisions. It is also a game that requires you to be intelligent enough to do all of the above while managing your units and economy. I understand "I don't want to fight against the interface" argument but at the same time we need the interface to be inefficient so that players can be differentiated from each other in more ways than strategy. Why do we need players to be differentiated from each other in more ways than strategy?
Maybe saying we "need" players to be differentiated from each other in more ways than strategy was a poor way to phrase it. I "think" that's how the game should be because it's what makes Starcraft a different genre of game from Checkers. The added mechanical skill required to play Starcraft makes it fun to watch and - for me at least - fun to play.
There's not much strategy in blinking back damaged stalkers but it is highly entertaining to watch when done well.
Another thing to consider is that completely new and innovative strategies that win a game outright with how unique and powerful they are are incredibly rare. How often do you see a game won because someone did something people have never ever seen before and win because of it?
Of course I can think of examples (Nestea using spine crawlers + OL creep to kill a toss expansion defended only with cannons) but after that strategy has been revealed it is now available for anyone to copy. What separates the truly great players in a real time strategy game like Starcraft 2 is the ability to execute and multitask a strategy better than anyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
