|
On September 10 2007 11:51 akast wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 11:41 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:On September 10 2007 11:37 1esu wrote:On September 10 2007 11:00 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:
More importantly, your example, "would your marines behind mineral lines be the most effective strategy or is there another more effective strategy" still isn't as mind intensive or as time intensive. I mean, arguably, it's already present in BW. Should you go for a storm drop in PvZ or focus on your main army? However, an amount of urgency/tension gets taken away from both options if you take away a lingering option in the back of your mind every 15-30 seconds, keeping your gateways producing perfectly. Explain to me how changing '5z6z7z8z9z0z' to '5z' or '5zzzzzz' (Luuh's revision) or 'gzgzgzgzgzgz' (my revision) takes away the option to hit those keys every 15-30 seconds. It's not like the computer is constantly producing whatever unit I tell it to out of all the production buildings I have; MBS affects the execution, not the decision behind it. Your point is valid up to six gates or so, where you don't have to go back in order to macro perfectly. But once you hit that critical mass where hotkeying all your production buildings isnt effective, in BW, you ahve to go back (physically to looking at your base and clicking gateways) and take time to macro if you want to. With MBS, you can macro perfectly in-battle all game long. There, explained. Mate...Blizzard wants the average SC2 game to last 15-20 minutes. If someone can pull off 12+ gateways in that time, I'd like to see it. It would probably be a very small minority. It would be an unrealistic scenario.
Uh..
That's hilarious.
You're hilarious.
Want a cookie?
|
On September 10 2007 11:53 RowdierBob wrote:
I think the best solution is making it available in regular games if people want it, but disabling it for ladder games.
That way the newbs can have their MBS fastest map mega macro battles and the rest of us can have a game with real competition.
Not to be rude, but I'd suggest you read the entire thread before reviving arguments that have already been thoroughly covered. Having to reiterate the same thing several times for new contributors is causing much of the tension and inflamed tempers in this thread, which is detracting from what I feel is some good discussion going on.
|
On September 10 2007 11:46 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 11:41 orangedude wrote:On September 10 2007 11:36 mahnini wrote:On September 10 2007 11:33 orangedude wrote:
I am sure that the campaigns will teach any new player how to take advantage of MBS. You have to assume that every player who has a brain will be able to take advantage of it. They might not hotkey the buildings properly, but MBS will still be available. I don't think this theory works out. The skill gap should be lowered among lesser players, and at the very top the SC2 line should reach a bit higher than SC. What a cop out. You would assume campaigns would teach players how to macro too but apparently not. The average player that starts with SC has about 40apm (It was for me and for others I've seen play), I don't want to start an apm debate but 40apm is not enough to be able to micro and take full advantage of MBS. That's not a cop out at all. MBS will be a feature of the UI that SC2 is built around. That's like saying it's difficult to learn how to select more than one unit at a time, so noobs will order units to attack one by one. Blizzard will make damn sure that they'll teach the player how to use it. Macro on the other hand is too broad to be taught. You learn it by experience. How is 40 apm not enough to take advantage of MBS? I don't see your logic at all. That's like saying there's a minimum apm requirement to select your group of zealots at once. No, I'm saying that new players won't have the ability to multitask well enough to take full advantage of MBS. He won't know how to macro as well as the other guy who will be cranking out units much faster than he would be able to in SC. Also, it has the potential to turn new player games into a macro fest since the time invested in macroing has much higher output than time spent microing. Not to mention it's easier and unit combos really won't matter too much at that level as long as you can overpower his macro. I'm talking D- to D level here.
Ah, I think I misunderstood your point before. There was no clarification to what "taking advantage of MBS" meant. You make a good case here.
However, there is a difference. Those people who are just learning to take advantage of MBS will not blame their losses on the UI, so they can only blame themselves and not the game. They will gradually learn (while climbing the ladder) and jump the gap. No one will complain that "omg, the other player cheated by using MBS". If MBS is not in, there will be a TON of people who will scream at Blizzard "wtf, that guy is only better than me because he can click through buildings faster than me?" and become frustrated with the GAME, not himself.
|
On September 10 2007 11:53 RowdierBob wrote:
I think the best solution is making it available in regular games if people want it, but disabling it for ladder games.
That wont work at all, the official ladder will be played by noobs wich is a huge part of wc3's success, since theres so many playing at different skill levels. If there are easier ways to play than the ladder then the ladder will become smaller than otherwise wich is always a bad thing.
Just look at starcraft, it gave people the option to play moneymaps and then most noobs just play it and never finds the competetive side of the game.
Then look at wc3, theres a ton of people playing the ladders there on ordinary maps with the real rules.
|
On September 10 2007 11:52 Polemarch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 11:28 mahnini wrote:Ok I'm going to bring my thing about skill differences since it makes more sense in this thread than the other. On September 10 2007 10:41 mahnini wrote:
...
Secondly, it's a huge problem, this just makes it worse for the new players to get acquainted to the game. If a mid-level player can 5z with MBS 25% of the time and the new player can only 5z 10% of the time he's just going to get run over. A new player would get crushed even harder.
Here's the way I see it, and I'm seeing this through your way just for the hell of it.
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10
There are many skill levels in SC but the gap between each is fairly low. The difference between 9 and 10 would be apparent but not too bad and the gap between 1 and 2 would be the same.
1-2-3-4-5
There are less skill levels in SC2 (with MBS) but the gap between each would be significantly larger. A player at skill level 1 would lose worse to a player at skill level 2 than in SC. While it does lower the gap between skill level 3 to 5.
So the improvement in SC is linear in terms of levels not time while the improvement in SC2 with MBS would be great at first but slowly become flat.
I don't know where this came from, random thoughts, carry on. I've constructed a pictogram (fancy word I felt like using not knowing the exact definition because I'm too lazy to look it up): Blue = SC Red = SC2 with MBS As you can see once a player learns how to take advantage of MBS the newer player will actually be more at a disadvantage than he would in SC. SC2 would also reach it's "highest" level much higher due to much less to do other than micro. So in essence in SC2 the difference between lowest and highest is smaller than it would be in SC. But the difference between sequential levels would be higher until about midpoint. Blue is y = root of x Red is y = x^3 In terms of shape in case you can't tell due to my apparent parkinsons. x = arbitrary time btw :D Disclaimer: random thoughts good stuff, Mahnini, I was thinking of posting a graph too. although I don't see how that's y = x^3. my graph would be more like: with player skill along the x axis, and rewards/results in the game along the y-axis. the flat part at the left is the learning curve, the flat part at the right is the asymptote. the best part is when you're in the middle part of the curve, because you're being challenged, and when you improve a bit you can immediately see the results. generally, a game should strive to keep the learning curve small (on the left side), and ensure that nobody (or only a very very few) will be in the asymptote at the right. to me, wc3 is definitely a case where it was too easy to get to the right side of that curve -- "almost perfection". at that point, it's kind of boring, and random noise like creep-jacking luck plays too much of a factor. edit: i forgot to add the bit on topic. if you added MBS/AM to original SC then it might push too many people up to near perfection, but this is a new game. blizzard can easily add other things to do, increase the speed, have units whose effectiveness varies wildly with skill (like HTs, mutas and marines), etc. to make the game require more skill and be more rewarding.
Yeah, I just had y=x^3 in reference to shape. 
Edit: i realized how wrong i was, carry on.
The thing is when players in SC2 learn how to properly macro and micro their skill level will shoot up due to MBS making things a whole lot easier (again, think somewhere around D- to D in SC terms). In SC they would be limited in progression by speed and need to multitask back and forth between base and unit but as it stands now SC2 does not have that.
|
On September 10 2007 11:51 akast wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 11:41 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:On September 10 2007 11:37 1esu wrote:On September 10 2007 11:00 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:
More importantly, your example, "would your marines behind mineral lines be the most effective strategy or is there another more effective strategy" still isn't as mind intensive or as time intensive. I mean, arguably, it's already present in BW. Should you go for a storm drop in PvZ or focus on your main army? However, an amount of urgency/tension gets taken away from both options if you take away a lingering option in the back of your mind every 15-30 seconds, keeping your gateways producing perfectly. Explain to me how changing '5z6z7z8z9z0z' to '5z' or '5zzzzzz' (Luuh's revision) or 'gzgzgzgzgzgz' (my revision) takes away the option to hit those keys every 15-30 seconds. It's not like the computer is constantly producing whatever unit I tell it to out of all the production buildings I have; MBS affects the execution, not the decision behind it. Your point is valid up to six gates or so, where you don't have to go back in order to macro perfectly. But once you hit that critical mass where hotkeying all your production buildings isnt effective, in BW, you ahve to go back (physically to looking at your base and clicking gateways) and take time to macro if you want to. With MBS, you can macro perfectly in-battle all game long. There, explained. Mate...Blizzard wants the average SC2 game to last 15-20 minutes. If someone can pull off 12+ gateways in that time, I'd like to see it. It would probably be a very small minority. It would be an unrealistic scenario.
Hahaha. So you can't play this game at all, and all your talk about APM etc was limited to what you absorbed off this forum.
Hahaha.
|
edit - i didn't read the whole thread, so i shoudln't bother contributing to the discussion.
|
On September 10 2007 11:56 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 11:51 akast wrote:On September 10 2007 11:41 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:On September 10 2007 11:37 1esu wrote:On September 10 2007 11:00 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:
More importantly, your example, "would your marines behind mineral lines be the most effective strategy or is there another more effective strategy" still isn't as mind intensive or as time intensive. I mean, arguably, it's already present in BW. Should you go for a storm drop in PvZ or focus on your main army? However, an amount of urgency/tension gets taken away from both options if you take away a lingering option in the back of your mind every 15-30 seconds, keeping your gateways producing perfectly. Explain to me how changing '5z6z7z8z9z0z' to '5z' or '5zzzzzz' (Luuh's revision) or 'gzgzgzgzgzgz' (my revision) takes away the option to hit those keys every 15-30 seconds. It's not like the computer is constantly producing whatever unit I tell it to out of all the production buildings I have; MBS affects the execution, not the decision behind it. Your point is valid up to six gates or so, where you don't have to go back in order to macro perfectly. But once you hit that critical mass where hotkeying all your production buildings isnt effective, in BW, you ahve to go back (physically to looking at your base and clicking gateways) and take time to macro if you want to. With MBS, you can macro perfectly in-battle all game long. There, explained. Mate...Blizzard wants the average SC2 game to last 15-20 minutes. If someone can pull off 12+ gateways in that time, I'd like to see it. It would probably be a very small minority. It would be an unrealistic scenario. Uh.. That's hilarious. You're hilarious. Want a cookie?
To clarify, what i mean by this post is, it's really common to pass the 8 gate mark in PvT and PvZ by the 12-15 minute mark easily. If you don't believe me, play me, watch the rep, and see when I get my 8th constantly producing gate. Hell, even the 12th.
|
8 gate is kinda low actually. Its common to max out 200/200 in 13 min or so PvT, and 11 min is possible even. Thats at least 11-12 gates off 3 base.
|
United States20661 Posts
akast - the TL envoys to Blizzcon were hitting 200/200 in under 15 minutes every game, I hear.
Currently macro is too simple. That's not to say that MBS is bad - it's just that some part of macro needs to be made more complicated [preferably strategically]
if all else fails, a mechanical handicap would work as well.
edit: as for the gateways - as Spirit and Aph said already, 8 gates is quite few. It's common to see 12+, even 15+. [there's that fairly famous tempest game on luna with 15 gates and 200/200 by 11 minutes or so]
|
On September 10 2007 12:13 Aphelion wrote:
8 gate is kinda low actually. Its common to max out 200/200 in 13 min or so PvT, and 11 min is possible even. Thats at least 11-12 gates off 3 base.
That's assuming he goes 1rax cc with low pressure up until the timing push designed to kill right after protoss takes his second...
Akast would probably do a 2fac high pressure build because that's how earlier players tend to go. Thus, 8 gates is conservative guess.
|
On September 10 2007 12:09 Mora wrote:
edit - i didn't read the whole thread, so i shoudln't bother contributing to the discussion.
Really, just skimming the first 5 or 6 pages are sufficient to get a grasp of it. I was just getting a little irritated of the same points being brought up again and again on both sides by people entering the debate. ^_^
|
On September 10 2007 11:37 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 11:33 orangedude wrote:
I am sure that the campaigns will teach any new player how to take advantage of MBS. You have to assume that every player who has a brain will be able to take advantage of it. They might not hotkey the buildings properly, but MBS will still be available. I don't think this theory works out. The skill gap should be lowered among lesser players, and at the very top the SC2 line should reach a bit higher than SC. How would sc2 reach a higher skill gap with all this skill based material out of the game? Your talking as if progamers can't even execute brilliant strategies becuase they're too busy spamming hotkeys. They can do both, that is the beauty of starcraft which separates this game from the piles of unsucessful esport failures we call 'other rts games.' Are you turning down my 1:1 offer? If your knowledge of this game is so good that you can assert all this about the future of esports you should be willing to show your own skill in this game. You can pick the map.
I already know that you are a better player than me. What are you trying to prove? It doesn't make your points more valid just because you can beat me, espcially since we're not discussing strategy here. I'll take up the challenge though. Tell me where to meet.
|
On September 10 2007 12:15 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 11:37 MyLostTemple wrote:On September 10 2007 11:33 orangedude wrote:
I am sure that the campaigns will teach any new player how to take advantage of MBS. You have to assume that every player who has a brain will be able to take advantage of it. They might not hotkey the buildings properly, but MBS will still be available. I don't think this theory works out. The skill gap should be lowered among lesser players, and at the very top the SC2 line should reach a bit higher than SC. How would sc2 reach a higher skill gap with all this skill based material out of the game? Your talking as if progamers can't even execute brilliant strategies becuase they're too busy spamming hotkeys. They can do both, that is the beauty of starcraft which separates this game from the piles of unsucessful esport failures we call 'other rts games.' Are you turning down my 1:1 offer? If your knowledge of this game is so good that you can assert all this about the future of esports you should be willing to show your own skill in this game. You can pick the map. I already know that you are a better player than me. What are you trying to prove? It doesn't make your points more valid just because you can beat me, espcially since we're not discussing strategy here. I'll take up the challenge though. Tell me where to meet.
He's trying to prove that you don't have the experience to understand the appeal of macro that keeps us vehemently against MBS.
EDIT: I wanna obs if you two end up playing ;3
|
Then uploading my most recent game should suffice and you can watch and decide for yourself.
|
|
|
is awesome32278 Posts
|
|
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
i'm on west on the name SirTasteless[9] on op tl-west
|
United States20661 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/7896/graphthing2lj4.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.computing.dcu.ie/~humphrys/Notes/Neural/Bitmaps/sigmoid.gif)
