• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 17:46
CEST 23:46
KST 06:46
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202552RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams7Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing RSL Season 1 - Final Week
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams BW General Discussion [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Post Pic of your Favorite Food! Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 755 users

Why MBS Is Essential To a Competitive SC2 - Page 12

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 10 11 12 13 14 39 Next All
Gandalf
Profile Joined August 2004
Pakistan1905 Posts
September 10 2007 03:55 GMT
#221
The 1v1 idea was pretty stupid. The thread was doing ok before that. It seems now like people are getting pissed.
Last Romantic
Profile Blog Joined June 2006
United States20661 Posts
September 10 2007 04:00 GMT
#222
bah. bo9 all MU is the end-all way to resolve disputes on TL
ㅋㄲㅈㅁ
OrderlyChaos
Profile Blog Joined June 2007
United States1115 Posts
September 10 2007 04:00 GMT
#223
On September 10 2007 12:14 Last Romantic wrote:
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]


That's interesting... I'm curious, what were your ideas for a more complex strategical macro? I've been trying to think, and I can't think of stuff.. But no one ever accused me of creativity.

EvilTeletubby
Profile Blog Joined January 2004
Baltimore, USA22254 Posts
September 10 2007 04:08 GMT
#224
On September 10 2007 12:55 Gandalf wrote:
The 1v1 idea was pretty stupid. The thread was doing ok before that. It seems now like people are getting pissed.


Actually no, Nick wanted to gauge his skill level... I watched the first game, there was a pretty clear difference. Tasteless started showing orange some macro or keyboard tricks (or 'secrets' as he kept calling them), he was genuinely trying to help orange get better, although I don't think orange has a very receptive attitude about it, but meh, Nick tried at least...

Anyways, this thread is getting pretty useless, if nothing productive comes after another page I'll close it.
Moderatorhttp://carbonleaf.yuku.com/topic/408/t/So-I-proposed-at-a-Carbon-Leaf-concert.html ***** RIP Geoff
Last Romantic
Profile Blog Joined June 2006
United States20661 Posts
September 10 2007 04:08 GMT
#225
The 12-mineral patches, I think, are a good strategical implementation regarding macro.

Other things like warp gates, merc haven operate differently than normal buildings. That may help.
ㅋㄲㅈㅁ
ArC_man
Profile Blog Joined August 2006
United States2798 Posts
September 10 2007 04:26 GMT
#226
Wtf are these random graphs? People need to stop making shit up -.-
Fen
Profile Blog Joined June 2006
Australia1848 Posts
September 10 2007 04:29 GMT
#227
Ok, to start with, GREAT post by OP. This is the first time I think I've read a well worded pro-MBS argument.

I havn't read the entire thread just yet, but I would still like to bring up a point, if it hasnt been brought up yet.

Someone somewhere posted that zerg have a form of easy macro due to the fact that they could select multiple larva at a time, allowing them to build multiple units at a time. However this is not overpowered in starcraft due to the simple fact that you still must go back to your hatcheries to do so, And this is what I think the biggest problem is with MBS. Its not the fact that you can do the macro actions faster than you could before. Its the fact that you dont have to go back to your base to do so.

Tasteless once said in one of his commenties "If you were to watch these guys screens right now, you'd have an epileptic fit" Its true, progamers are jumping all over the place controlling everything. That I think is the major problem. With MBS and Automine, you only ever have to go back to your base to build more buildings. Apart from that you can sit back and watch your army the entire time. This takes away from the game a lot. I like the fact that in starcraft I have to manage all these different expansions and bases. And that I cannot do this at the same time as watching my army. Ive actually got to go to those expansions to make them do what I want them to do. I think a lot of the difficulty in starcraft is due to this fact that youve got to be constantly jumping around to different areas of the map to make sure that everything is going smoothly. Most of this will be lost if MBS and Automine are implemented, which I fear will make the game feel a lot less hectic and boring.
SpiritoftheTunA
Profile Blog Joined August 2006
United States20903 Posts
September 10 2007 04:35 GMT
#228
On September 10 2007 13:29 Fen wrote:
Ok, to start with, GREAT post by OP. This is the first time I think I've read a well worded pro-MBS argument.

I havn't read the entire thread just yet, but I would still like to bring up a point, if it hasnt been brought up yet.

Someone somewhere posted that zerg have a form of easy macro due to the fact that they could select multiple larva at a time, allowing them to build multiple units at a time. However this is not overpowered in starcraft due to the simple fact that you still must go back to your hatcheries to do so, And this is what I think the biggest problem is with MBS. Its not the fact that you can do the macro actions faster than you could before. Its the fact that you dont have to go back to your base to do so.

Tasteless once said in one of his commenties "If you were to watch these guys screens right now, you'd have an epileptic fit" Its true, progamers are jumping all over the place controlling everything. That I think is the major problem. With MBS and Automine, you only ever have to go back to your base to build more buildings. Apart from that you can sit back and watch your army the entire time. This takes away from the game a lot. I like the fact that in starcraft I have to manage all these different expansions and bases. And that I cannot do this at the same time as watching my army. Ive actually got to go to those expansions to make them do what I want them to do. I think a lot of the difficulty in starcraft is due to this fact that youve got to be constantly jumping around to different areas of the map to make sure that everything is going smoothly. Most of this will be lost if MBS and Automine are implemented, which I fear will make the game feel a lot less hectic and boring.


It's been brought up.
posting on liquid sites in current year
Fen
Profile Blog Joined June 2006
Australia1848 Posts
September 10 2007 04:38 GMT
#229
On September 10 2007 13:35 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 10 2007 13:29 Fen wrote:
Ok, to start with, GREAT post by OP. This is the first time I think I've read a well worded pro-MBS argument.

I havn't read the entire thread just yet, but I would still like to bring up a point, if it hasnt been brought up yet.

Someone somewhere posted that zerg have a form of easy macro due to the fact that they could select multiple larva at a time, allowing them to build multiple units at a time. However this is not overpowered in starcraft due to the simple fact that you still must go back to your hatcheries to do so, And this is what I think the biggest problem is with MBS. Its not the fact that you can do the macro actions faster than you could before. Its the fact that you dont have to go back to your base to do so.

Tasteless once said in one of his commenties "If you were to watch these guys screens right now, you'd have an epileptic fit" Its true, progamers are jumping all over the place controlling everything. That I think is the major problem. With MBS and Automine, you only ever have to go back to your base to build more buildings. Apart from that you can sit back and watch your army the entire time. This takes away from the game a lot. I like the fact that in starcraft I have to manage all these different expansions and bases. And that I cannot do this at the same time as watching my army. Ive actually got to go to those expansions to make them do what I want them to do. I think a lot of the difficulty in starcraft is due to this fact that youve got to be constantly jumping around to different areas of the map to make sure that everything is going smoothly. Most of this will be lost if MBS and Automine are implemented, which I fear will make the game feel a lot less hectic and boring.


It's been brought up.


OK sorry, dont have time to read through 12 pages of posts.
1esu
Profile Joined April 2007
United States303 Posts
Last Edited: 2007-09-10 04:47:11
September 10 2007 04:44 GMT
#230
On September 10 2007 13:35 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 10 2007 13:29 Fen wrote:
Ok, to start with, GREAT post by OP. This is the first time I think I've read a well worded pro-MBS argument.

I havn't read the entire thread just yet, but I would still like to bring up a point, if it hasnt been brought up yet.

Someone somewhere posted that zerg have a form of easy macro due to the fact that they could select multiple larva at a time, allowing them to build multiple units at a time. However this is not overpowered in starcraft due to the simple fact that you still must go back to your hatcheries to do so, And this is what I think the biggest problem is with MBS. Its not the fact that you can do the macro actions faster than you could before. Its the fact that you dont have to go back to your base to do so.

Tasteless once said in one of his commenties "If you were to watch these guys screens right now, you'd have an epileptic fit" Its true, progamers are jumping all over the place controlling everything. That I think is the major problem. With MBS and Automine, you only ever have to go back to your base to build more buildings. Apart from that you can sit back and watch your army the entire time. This takes away from the game a lot. I like the fact that in starcraft I have to manage all these different expansions and bases. And that I cannot do this at the same time as watching my army. Ive actually got to go to those expansions to make them do what I want them to do. I think a lot of the difficulty in starcraft is due to this fact that youve got to be constantly jumping around to different areas of the map to make sure that everything is going smoothly. Most of this will be lost if MBS and Automine are implemented, which I fear will make the game feel a lot less hectic and boring.


It's been brought up.


Yeah, but not as thoroughly explained as Fen's post is, which I think is helpful. Most anti-MBSers just say "the macro is crucial to the game's competitiveness!" or "the game is too slow and boring without macro!" without explaining that it's mostly not the '4z5z6z7z8z9z0z' part they're really referring to, it's the going back to the base multitasking part. That's a crucial point in understanding both sides' arguments.
MyLostTemple *
Profile Blog Joined November 2004
United States2921 Posts
September 10 2007 04:51 GMT
#231
we just got done playing, i won 3-0, reps are here:

http://rapidshare.com/files/54605238/PvP..Taste..orangedude1.rep
http://rapidshare.com/files/54605311/PvP..Taste..Orangedude2.rep
http://rapidshare.com/files/54605344/PvP..Taste..Orangedude3.rep

He does indeed know how to play starcraft, his openers are the standard ones a player uses on the maps he choose. However, i did manage to find out that orangedude was unawear of the correct finger usage of keyboard combos. This probably explains why he felt the macro combos to be too difficult and a waist of time.

correct combos for protoss:
4d5d6d7d8d9d0d = pinky on 'd' ring on '4' middle finger on '5' index on 6 and up.
0p9p = index on 'p' middle on '0' and ring on '9'

remember good positions for making buildings fast:

bp[shift] = pinky on 'b' and index on 'p' use thumb on 'shift' so you can send your probe back to minerals fast. You will probably need the right windows key missing to pull this one off.

If you don't know shortcuts like these, macroing can be VERY difficult. (with customizable hotkeys you can make an easier hotkey setup so you wont struggle as much with this)

Orangedude's argument to get rid of the macro combos is as illogical as someone arguing that we should have PSI storm auto casted because 'clicking' the storm button can never work fast enough to utilize the ability. All someone has to do is show them to put their index over the 't' key and suddenly that player can storm with speed and precision he would never have dreamed of before.

I do respect your arguments, but i believe if you haven't learned how to shift your hand over the keyboard, you are arguing against a feature of starcraft you know nothing about. And that is one feature that made this game beautiful and intense. Lets let it carry over into competitive play.
Follow me on twitter: CallMeTasteless
orangedude
Profile Joined April 2007
Canada220 Posts
Last Edited: 2007-09-10 05:16:53
September 10 2007 04:52 GMT
#232
Ok, so Tasteless showed me some of his keyboard tricks (moving hands all around the keyboard and using pinky fingers for production). He obviously knows the most efficient way to macro early on, and this makes the game a lot more enjoyable for him to play. I respect his opinion on this and I can see why he wants to keep MBS in.

But does that mean everyone else is playing it "wrong" though? And Teletubby, why would you close this thread? Just because nothing's productive atm, doesn't mean nothing will be.

The t for storm thing is different though, because it was intended to be in the game by Blizzard. Hotkeys were always part of the game and can be customized to suit your needs. The way you place your fingers though isn't so much a feature, but personal preference and is completely up to the player to decide. Some ways are obviously better than others.
koryano321
Profile Joined June 2007
United States309 Posts
September 10 2007 04:56 GMT
#233
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.


and with mbs and automining, how will there be a higher gap between the pros? with everyone being able to macro easily in the midst of battle, wouldnt that lower the gap between all pros? i dont see your line of logic when dumbing down the macro aspect of the game, explain please.
Scorpio2012 wrote: i guess god is about as useful as a protoss scout
MyLostTemple *
Profile Blog Joined November 2004
United States2921 Posts
Last Edited: 2007-09-10 05:00:42
September 10 2007 04:58 GMT
#234
On September 10 2007 13:52 orangedude wrote:
Ok, so Tasteless showed me some of his keyboard tricks (moving hands all around the keyboard and using pinky fingers for production). He obviously knows the most efficient way to macro early on, and this makes the game a lot more enjoyable for him to play. I can see why he wants MBS in.

Does that mean everyone else is playing it "wrong" though? And Teletubby, why would you close this thread? Just because nothing's productive atm, doesn't mean nothing will be.


I'm not making a 'Starcraft Intelligent design argument.' If i thought starcraft players were playing the game 'wrong' and there was actually something 'wrong' with that, i would be trashing on bgh players and ums players. I'm not. But there is something 'wrong' with telling a bunch of competitive starcraft players that their ladder and tournament games should have MBS forced upon them because a whole bunch of other players never learned all the techniques.

If you want to be the best and you want to play competitively, there is something "wrong" with not utilizing the keyboard since your probably spending 10x the energy on tasks that could be completed without even looking at the screen.

I suggest we make the new players learn what the old already did (and will probably be easier to learn with customizable hotkeys). The players who know this technique enjoy the game more for it. So why take this away?
Follow me on twitter: CallMeTasteless
1esu
Profile Joined April 2007
United States303 Posts
September 10 2007 05:32 GMT
#235
On September 10 2007 13:58 MyLostTemple wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 10 2007 13:52 orangedude wrote:
Ok, so Tasteless showed me some of his keyboard tricks (moving hands all around the keyboard and using pinky fingers for production). He obviously knows the most efficient way to macro early on, and this makes the game a lot more enjoyable for him to play. I can see why he wants MBS in.

Does that mean everyone else is playing it "wrong" though? And Teletubby, why would you close this thread? Just because nothing's productive atm, doesn't mean nothing will be.


I'm not making a 'Starcraft Intelligent design argument.' If i thought starcraft players were playing the game 'wrong' and there was actually something 'wrong' with that, i would be trashing on bgh players and ums players. I'm not. But there is something 'wrong' with telling a bunch of competitive starcraft players that their ladder and tournament games should have MBS forced upon them because a whole bunch of other players never learned all the techniques.

If you want to be the best and you want to play competitively, there is something "wrong" with not utilizing the keyboard since your probably spending 10x the energy on tasks that could be completed without even looking at the screen.

I suggest we make the new players learn what the old already did (and will probably be easier to learn with customizable hotkeys). The players who know this technique enjoy the game more for it. So why take this away?


Because as aesthetically pleasing a technique as it is (I admit I do like watching it), it intuitively feels to new players like a barrier built into the interface, since the skill involved in dancing across the keyboard is incogruent with the other skills which require decision-making, and which come to mind when most people think of RTS games. How do I know this? Because of the "noobs" that have posted in this thread. Assuming that they are inexperienced with SC, their intuitions, especially since they are all so consistent, represent how the non-SC gamer will react to the SC interface being kept in SC2. And, as you've noted, most if not all of these intuitions are negative. Why does this matter? Because, as people familiar with TL, it's not too much of a stretch to assume that these "noobs" are interested in playing SC2 competitively. However, if they feel the game is placing an "artificial restriction" upon them, as many have stated, then only a very small percentage will actually play competitively long enough to be a part of the competitive community. And if this happens, you can kiss the possibility of professional SC2 outside of Asia goodbye, much less the long-term success of the SC2 competitive community. After all, can you name me one truly professional-level SC competition other than the WCG in the Americas or Europe?
Liquid`Jinro
Profile Blog Joined September 2002
Sweden33719 Posts
Last Edited: 2007-09-10 06:22:58
September 10 2007 05:36 GMT
#236
On September 09 2007 20:00 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 09 2007 19:54 Fuu wrote:
On September 09 2007 19:50 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
On September 09 2007 19:44 Fuu wrote:
What one can really predict is that one of the two major components of the only game who's suitable for progaming to date will be severely amputated.

I'm not even speaking of the unit production here, imagine all your 5 nexus to 1 hotkey, coupled with auto mining. Are you enough stupid to claim it wont have any major impact on the game ?

As something to replace the macro attention, this is more than unsure. And stop with very circunstancial ridiculous examples.

These threads make me cry T.T
The mass teenager people creating an account only for and since the sc2 forum make me cry.

Most of you don't even have an idea why starcraft is still here and why you still can post on this site. And don't tell me it's not about the 'keeps you on the toes' macro, because it's certainly one of the major reasons.


It will only be "severly amputated" if the top gamers were using 100 % perfect macro. They are not, and I dare say that the reason is because of UI limitations. If MBS was introduced the free time could be spent on something else, and it probably would be spent on improving their allready impressive macro.
It's also a fact that the better you get at macro the less MBS matters to you since if you build a marine exactly everytime you get 50 minerals it will be the same number of clicks (although you don't have to find a specific free barracks).

So in short, MBS makes it easier to macro but it doesn't matter because no living person has perfect macro anyway which means it will simply raise the bar.


It will indeed raise the bar and close the gaps.


So? A person who needs help to spend the 2000 minerals he has in the bank isn't going to be able to compete with a pro either way.
MBS will raise the bar on the highest levels and lower it on the lowest levels. Isn't that what we want? Sure the gap in the middle will close a bit but what we have seen Blizzard is compensating with other things either way.

Anyway, if you agree with me that the bar will be raised in professional gaming how can you say that MBS will destroy one of the two aspects that make progaming enjoyable?

What exactly are they compensating with?

On September 09 2007 22:19 sc2rocks wrote:
With MBS, you could focus on other important aspects of the game, such as MICRO.

There's already micro in the game, and one of the great charms of SC is that you have to choose between macro and micro constantly.

On September 09 2007 22:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 09 2007 22:25 Fuu wrote:
Your real argument ??
I don't see any argumentation in fact, just an affirmation.

In fact it will close the skill gap obviously where there's a gap, means not only on the lower levels. For example between the best amateurs and the pros, and that's for sure not suitable.

I don't know why you suppose it won't happen at higher levels ? For me the lower levels is in fact the place where it matters the less cause the concerned people don't even know what hotkey means... So yes, i still don't understand anything to your real argument...

And even if it's the case, why do you think it wouldn't matter ? They indeed can find something alse to improve. Is it a reason to put this component out ? For the next game another newb will claim another thing should be out, and make exactly the same argumentation than you. Is it improvement ? For sure not in my eyes.


This discussion was about how MBS was or was not bad for competetive gaming. My argument is that it does not hurt the top tier gamers because their macro is not 100 %, most because of a bad UI holding them back. With MBS they can simply take the time saved and put it into improving their macro. At the same time MBS means very little on a progamer level because they will want to build their units as soon as they have the resources, which means that they will still build them more or less 1 by 1.
The amateurs may get a level of macro reminding us of progamers today but the progamers will have even better macro. And at the same time the better you get the less it means.

And if you don't get why new players hate the SC kind of macro and why it has to go you are blind. It was OK when SC came out because all the games did it the same way, but people these days demand games that do what they want them to do. Good UI is a required component in any modern game because people get extremly frustrated when the game artifically limits their command. There's no need to make people click 30+ times in order to build 15 zealots anymore, and new players know this and expect it to only be 2 clicks.
It's very easy to see why a new player gets frustrated when he knows he should build more units but he still gets run over because he just can't do it and the other guy has more troops. And it's a valid source of frustration as well because he's not loosing to the other player, he's loosing to the interface.

If we cut this part of the game out new players will get their 15 zealots and it's what they do with them that matters. But at the same time they have so many other areas they can improve in (including macro) that it doesn't really matter, because people will differentiate in skill in other ways. And yes, for the next SC players will complain about something, but as long as it's complaints on how they have to figth the game instead of their opponents we should listen to them.

I think it's really sad that there are so many good SC gamers that thinks a inferior mechanics have to stay because they have come to rely on it. In the ideal game there are no UI limitations and you figth only your opponent instead of figthing the game first and then your enemy.

Ok, I think you make good arguments and all but this post is just flat wrong:

This is what I'm most annoyed by:
It's very easy to see why a new player gets frustrated when he knows he should build more units but he still gets run over because he just can't do it and the other guy has more troops. And it's a valid source of frustration as well because he's not loosing to the other player, he's loosing to the interface.

Ok, so if I'm playing vs Federer in tennis, and I KNOW what I should do, but I just can't fucking do it because I've played tennis a total of 5 times in my life, I should just blame my equipment? The game? The rules?


I think it's really sad that there are so many good SC gamers that thinks a inferior mechanics have to stay because they have come to rely on it. In the ideal game there are no UI limitations and you figth only your opponent instead of figthing the game first and then your enemy.

That doesn't sound very fun to me, I like the physical aspect of the game. Better technique should be rewarded.

I know you probably don't want a game controlled completely through, say, voice commands or something, you still want micro etc, I just don't like the arguments you used in this post, even though I don't entirely disagree with what you are saying overall.

Nony:
So if we agree that people will at least try the ladder even if the features aren't exactly what they want, then we have to look at what keeps a competitive person playing. Nearly every competitive player I've met only enjoys a game that he wins and never enjoys a game that he loses. There are exceptions of course, but that is basically how the "competitive itch" functions in people. If they go through hell and frustration throughout the game but turn out a win, they'll be happy and be dying to do it again. If they go through hell again but lose, then they're upset but their competitiveness keeps them seeking after what their opponent has and they don't. "Having fun" is one of the last things a competitive player is thinking about. For the vast majority of the time, fun is winning.

I quit when I start winning for too long, I play 20 hour sessions when I'm losing.
8[

Cuddly:
If no one has perfect macro then how does improving the UI (and thus the ability to macro) "dumb down" the game? It will certainly move the ammount of skill/macro to a higher level than BW but does that really matter? I still don't think that it will be humanly possible to achive 100 % perfect macro even with MBS regardless of how pro you are.
Just moving the skillbar to the rigth does not dumb the game down and if there is no maxium ammount of skill talking about skill gaps is irrelevant. Especially about a feature that can never help you achive perfect macro in the first place.

I think MBS will, as I think you've already said yourself, help the mid-tier gamers more than the very top, which will lead to a smaller gap between truly great and good - and this is BAD.

A worse player can already beat a better player, reducing the areas in which you can differentiate good from bad is going to lead to smaller edges and more - at least short term - luck, I would think.


And I don't see how the burden of proof would only be on us. I've yet to see anyone show me why MBS would dumb down the game. Just saying that it's obvious that it gets easier because you can build 15 zealots in the same time as one does not cut it.
Dune II wasn't a "smarter" game than Warcraft, Warcraft wasn't a "smarter" game than Warcraft II and Warcraft II wasn't a "smarter" game than SC.
All of these games massivly improved the UI and they still got more complex in every itteration, and a lot more fun to play as well.
So I'd like to see some actuall proof on how improved UI would dumb down SCII when it has never dumbed down RTS games in the past.

Because you can go too far with improvements, I'm not 100% saying MBS is going too far I'm just saying that's why you can't use the argument that hey, SCs interface is easier than War2s, so obviously if we make SC2s interface even easier to use it will be better.

Also I would probably miss 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z..


Armies of Exigo tried to stay hardcore and they got slammed pretty hard for it.

IIRC AoE had MBS (did it have auto-mining when rallied? only played the beta briefly), I thought the main sources of criticism were that it was basically 'just another WC3/Starcraft'.


I'm the one talking about 100 % perfect macro and you managed to completly missunderstand what I was saying.
Take a look at the interface discussion thread and the posts (ironically) dissing Hwasins "noob" macro. No one has 100 % perfect macro. No one is going to have perfect macro in SC2 either, regardless of if MBS is in or not. Which means that it's unlikely they will spend significantly less time on macro. If it's not possible for the best players today to play perfectly and we make it easier for them the top players of tomorow will play a bit closer to perfect, but it won't reduce the ammount of macro that is possible if it's the human limit that is the deciding factor.

But if macro becomes easy to the point where you never have to sacrifice either macro or micro in favour of the other then there will be less room for skill differentiation no?

Or at least the impact (of differing skill levels) will be much smaller as I don't think the best players will benefit nearly as much.

Tada1
I came from w3 to sc so I personally don't believe that MBS is such a necessity.
I like SC because in sc, u have to balance the time u use for macro and micro.
If macro or micro is too easy, the game will not be very fun.

Do u know what Grubby said about the gameplay of w3? He said that at competitive level, the game is not as fun because in w3, macro is so easy, everyone can have near perfect macro.
And when people have the same macro, the game is not be as fun. Harass is not effective so people don't have much incentive to harass, they just focus on building their force. And since u can't win with macro anymore, u r forced to use timing and micro to win. At first it's fun. I came up with a bunch of nice strat, used them quite climb pretty high on the ladder. But after 3 years, there's virtually no new strat for timing win. It's all micro war then. That was the reason I left w3 and learn sc from the scratch
I believed that in w3 Bliz intended to replace macro with creeping. They failed! Even though creeping is like macro, creep jaking is random, this seriously take away the balance.
If Bliz gonna make macroing easier, they need to come up with something good,

This is pretty much what I'm worried about, even though the scope/scale of SC2 will obviously make it much less likely to happen since there'll be so much more to SC2 macro even with MBS/AM.

I also think its entirely possible that people who havent played SC before end up being top SCII players, beating out SC's top players.

Only when we are dead!!!

Serious response is obv. yes, although I'm pretty sure it will take a while (except for War3 players of course, they'll start at the same place as us).
Moderatortell the guy that interplanatar interaction is pivotal to terrans variety of optionitudals in the pre-midgame preperatories as well as the protosstinal deterriggation of elite zergling strikes - Stimey n | Formerly FrozenArbiter
SuperJongMan
Profile Blog Joined March 2003
Jamaica11586 Posts
September 10 2007 05:40 GMT
#237
Drop Pods.
POWER OVERWHELMING ! ! ! KRUU~ KRUU~
MyLostTemple *
Profile Blog Joined November 2004
United States2921 Posts
Last Edited: 2007-09-10 06:15:47
September 10 2007 06:15 GMT
#238
On September 10 2007 14:32 1esu wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 10 2007 13:58 MyLostTemple wrote:
On September 10 2007 13:52 orangedude wrote:
Ok, so Tasteless showed me some of his keyboard tricks (moving hands all around the keyboard and using pinky fingers for production). He obviously knows the most efficient way to macro early on, and this makes the game a lot more enjoyable for him to play. I can see why he wants MBS in.

Does that mean everyone else is playing it "wrong" though? And Teletubby, why would you close this thread? Just because nothing's productive atm, doesn't mean nothing will be.


I'm not making a 'Starcraft Intelligent design argument.' If i thought starcraft players were playing the game 'wrong' and there was actually something 'wrong' with that, i would be trashing on bgh players and ums players. I'm not. But there is something 'wrong' with telling a bunch of competitive starcraft players that their ladder and tournament games should have MBS forced upon them because a whole bunch of other players never learned all the techniques.

If you want to be the best and you want to play competitively, there is something "wrong" with not utilizing the keyboard since your probably spending 10x the energy on tasks that could be completed without even looking at the screen.

I suggest we make the new players learn what the old already did (and will probably be easier to learn with customizable hotkeys). The players who know this technique enjoy the game more for it. So why take this away?


Because as aesthetically pleasing a technique as it is (I admit I do like watching it), it intuitively feels to new players like a barrier built into the interface, since the skill involved in dancing across the keyboard is incogruent with the other skills which require decision-making, and which come to mind when most people think of RTS games. How do I know this? Because of the "noobs" that have posted in this thread. Assuming that they are inexperienced with SC, their intuitions, especially since they are all so consistent, represent how the non-SC gamer will react to the SC interface being kept in SC2. And, as you've noted, most if not all of these intuitions are negative. Why does this matter? Because, as people familiar with TL, it's not too much of a stretch to assume that these "noobs" are interested in playing SC2 competitively. However, if they feel the game is placing an "artificial restriction" upon them, as many have stated, then only a very small percentage will actually play competitively long enough to be a part of the competitive community. And if this happens, you can kiss the possibility of professional SC2 outside of Asia goodbye, much less the long-term success of the SC2 competitive community. After all, can you name me one truly professional-level SC competition other than the WCG in the Americas or Europe?


1esu, this element to starcraft is a feature that completely separates this game from any other rts game that is popular today. I don't see why we would make this games sequal easier so that a bunch of newbs can compete with out learning all the tricks. They can learn like everyone else. Starcraft isn't as popular in major tournaments around the world because most tournaments wont sponsor games unless they have top of the line graphics. It has nothing to do with it's lack of mbs, if that's what your implying. Putting SC2 in the competitive scene with the original UI settings will only help it grow as a spectator sport. I can't believe you'd honestly think SC2 needs to have MBS in order to survive in esports when it's clearly been proven that, when given the chance, this game grows to extremely popular levels like it has in Korea. All it needs is some sexy graphics and some new cool units with THE SAME old interface to be successful. Then you have the looks AND the gameplay.

But alas, i'm too tired to argue about this any more. Now that i've proven i'm arguing with a bunch of people who have never bothered to learn hotkey combos i don't see any reason to discuss this.
I'm sorry new players can't learn this quickly, there's a lot about sc you can't learn quickly, that's what makes this game good.

Blizzard can easily implement modes of play that will teach players how to hotkey together. I think most SC players start out being terrible at SC because it comes with a strategy guide jam packed with bullshit. Instead, the player has to learn on his or her own. And if anyone complains about this new setting, blizzard can proudly point out the korean pro scene and how SC2's gameplay must mimic the intensity that has been shown over there. If new players are still disgusted with this feature, i'm sure there are a dozen other rts games that will suit their needs.

Lets just make sure this game is putting the Starcraft players needs somewhat higher than the 'other rts gamer's needs. It was our game first right? I'm sure we can spread our love to the next generation.
Follow me on twitter: CallMeTasteless
Aphelion
Profile Blog Joined December 2005
United States2720 Posts
September 10 2007 06:23 GMT
#239
Amen. I'm going to cease posting on this topic too, I don't think there's anything I can say that is better or with more authority than what Tasteless just said.
But Garimto was always more than just a Protoss...
Liquid`Jinro
Profile Blog Joined September 2002
Sweden33719 Posts
Last Edited: 2007-09-10 06:57:55
September 10 2007 06:28 GMT
#240
On September 10 2007 04:21 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 10 2007 04:00 mdainoob wrote:
On September 10 2007 01:18 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
I'm the one talking about 100 % perfect macro and you managed to completly missunderstand what I was saying.
Take a look at the interface discussion thread and the posts (ironically) dissing Hwasins "noob" macro. No one has 100 % perfect macro. No one is going to have perfect macro in SC2 either, regardless of if MBS is in or not. Which means that it's unlikely they will spend significantly less time on macro. If it's not possible for the best players today to play perfectly and we make it easier for them the top players of tomorow will play a bit closer to perfect, but it won't reduce the ammount of macro that is possible if it's the human limit that is the deciding factor.


Uh although pros may not macro perfectly, if you are to add many simplifications to the game, then the dexterity aspect of macro becomes MUCH smaller, despite the strategical depth unaltered. With less dexterity required, logically less time is going to be spent on macro. Execution would be less of a factor than simply knowing what to do. Macro can be said to compose of two aspects (as some1 said earlier), one knowing when to expo, what to build ect, and the other actually doing it. This other aspect of bw macro will be heavily reduced by automing and mbs, something that many players here (including myself) dont want.

I assume you've played bw a lot, and so you clearly know the amount of dexterity and speed and multitasking required to macro effectively. Even for pros this is a large drain. The pros are going to spend much less tiem macroing and focus more time on microing if mbs and automing and added and no suitable substitutes are in place (which we can't completely determine yet). I guess this is just my personal preference, but I think its much more impressive to see a pro play so well and play at a level beyodn waht I could ever achieve, than to see someone playing a slowed down game and think, "hey, i could do that. I thought of that strategy too".

Also as a general response, i've had some friend's who've played c&c3 and when they tried sc they never complained about "wtf wheres the multiple building select?". I don't think it would be as detrimental for reviews as some people seem to think.


I disagree strongly. Pros today can't play a perfect macro game as shown by the Hwasin video. Not even Nada or ooV can. With MBS they could play a better game but it would not be a less intense game.

A top player today goes back and activates several production buildings mid battle and sends out perhaps one controll group of finished units. That's what he's capable of doing while performing on top, and he will still be struggling to spend all his money in a good way, and he'll probably resort to queing some units.

This is not optimal macro. Optimal macro is what we see in early progames where players build 1 unit and send it down to the battle line. This is possible because there isn't enough things going on in the first few minutes so a progamer can easily handle this.

If a progamer could build units individually as soon as he had the money and send them down individually to his army he would and we would see a neverending stream of reinforcments going towards the hotspots.
If MBS is included it's unlikely that everyone will say "oh but the current level of macro is fine, I'll just slack of with the rest of my ability". What will likely happen is that they use their skill to macro even harder, building units in smaller groups and sending reinforcements more often.

MBS will not reduce the speed and multitasking required for top level Starcraft unless a top level player runs out of meaningfull things to do.
MBS will reduce the importance of macro however, because in a stressed out situation it will be easier to achive "acceptable" levels of macro but a truly great player needs to excell in all areas.

My point is that SC allready has an inhuman ammount of meaningfull things to do, including macro. SCII looks to expand on that with more abilities. Unless pro's run out of things to do I don't think the game would change that much from MBS.

Also remember, MBS is only a benefit as long as you are not striving for good macro since MBS requires you to build multiple units at once while perfect macro is building every unit as soon as it's avalible.

I seriously think most people think MBS would have a bigger impact on the game than it will have.

For whatever it's worth, the fact that it's impossible to maintain perfect macro when the going gets tough is part of what makes starcraft great.

I hope that, MBS or no MBS, in SC2 there'll still be that feeling of - I'm not sure what word to use - panic? Enjoyable panic when you are struggling to send your probes away, remake the pylons powering some of your gateways that were killed by that latest zergling drop and still make units from the rest of your 10 gates.

On September 10 2007 05:11 Nintu wrote:
People keep saying that even the pro's have imperfect macro and I'm SICK of that argument. One of the biggest differences between pro's and amateurs is that a pro knows when it's more important to micro your MnM's than it is to tell your raxxes to produce more. People say that pro's will often have an expo with 4 scv's just sitting there after being built. Stop calling that "Imperfect" macro. Of course it's not perfect, it's not supposed to be perfect! You're not supposed to be able to perfect macro while still being able to micro your attacks. That defeats the delicate balance which makes Starcraft as intricate as it is.

NaDa knows that his raxx's are done producing, but he realizes it's more important for him to spread his rines than it is tell his raxx's to produce again. Macro to me isn't telling a barracks to build something. Macro to me is the decision that you have found a (small)window of opportunity to go back to your base(s) and complete the tasks that you would be unable to do when there are lurkers coming at you.

The idea that I'll never see idle SCV's anymore breaks my heart. Whenever I see a progamer with idle workers, I don't think "Oh, you have terrible macro." I think, "You have more important things to do right now than macro and I respect your judgment."

With MBS and AM, you no-longer need to balance your tasks between micro and macro. Workers will automatically mine. You can reproduce with a couple key presses without even looking back to your base. The delicate balance of micro and macro that makes NaDa better than everyone of us will be destroyed. The idea of never seeing a progamer lose marines carelessly when he simply wasn't paying attention to them at that time, but rather on macro, bugs me a lot.

I want to see idle scv's. I want to see units die because they were not micro'd. The idea of Starcraft is that you can only complete half the tasks you need to at that moment, you have to decide which tasks are more important to do. MBS and AM just makes it more and more possible for you to do everything you need to.

Starcraft will nolonger be 50%/50% macro/micro, it will be 20%/50% with a lot of free time.

I apologize that I couldn't articulate my points very well, I'm insanely preoccupied, I'll come back later and try and re-articulate some of this stuff.

Good post.

When I try to imagine SC with MBS, TvZ is the matchup that would suffer the most as in most other matchups you need more of a mix of units whereas making 15 marines from your raxes at once is pretty standard in TvZ, but will be made much easier with MBS.

Luuh's suggestion - from .. earlier this thread? another thread? Who knows, too huge! Ayway, his suggestion to make it so that you have to click once per unit you want made is great I think.

4z5z6z7z8z9z0z will become 4zzzzzzzz or whatever, or 4zzzttt or 4mmmmmmmcf. Could have a little number showing which rax you are currently at, ie 12 raxes selected, now viewing rax 7/12.


On September 10 2007 05:23 Oc wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 10 2007 05:11 Nintu wrote:

Starcraft will nolonger be 50%/50% macro/micro, it will be 20%/50% with a lot of free time.


30% of your macro is spent clicking the 10 gateways? What is your APM, like 10?

This post reminded me of the 'micro/macro' stats in BWChart, and how I usually have more of my actions spent on micro than macro (60/40 or so) which is funny given how BW is always percieved to be such a macro dominant game.

Not really all that related to the post I quoted, just reminded me.


On September 10 2007 08:46 SoleSteeler wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 10 2007 07:34 fuglyfrog wrote:
I think this pretty much sums up the mentality of the "rts community":

+ Show Spoiler +

47 Reasons TA is better than Starcraft
1) Starcraft only has 84 units, over half of which are buildings and their add-ons! Total Annihilation has over 250.

2) In Starcraft, only 12 units can be in a group at once. Note that this was claimed to help "prevent rushing", not that it really does because you can just hotkey groups of units. Of course, Total Annihilation has no limit.

3) In Starcraft, a maximum of five units can be built at once by each building except Zerg, who can only build three and only at certain times. Total Annihilation has no limit.

4) In Starcraft, only nine commands can be given to one unit at once and you can't see what has been queued or in what order, nor can you undo any queued commands and the commands can only be spells or movement orders. In Total Annihilation there is no limit, and you are shown exactly what each unit will do and in what order and you can undo and redo any of the commands in any order.

5) In Starcraft, when a construction unit builds a structure, or a unit plant builds a unit, no other units can help construct, hence the build speed cannot be augmented in any way. In Total Annihilation, you can have as many units as you want help construct buildings and units to speed it up. (Note that even in WarCraft II, you could make an extra peon help build a structure.)

6) There are a limited number of resources on any given Starcraft map. Total Annihilation has no limit. However, when making a map, you can simulate the 'limited resources' concept by restricting all resource units (Solar Collectors, Metal Extractors etc.), and place lots of debris, rocks, and trees. That way you will have to reclaim them, much like in gathering your resources in Starcraft.

7) In Starcraft, you can select all units of the same type, but only on the screen, and only 12 of them. CTRL-Z in Total Annihilation selects all units of that type on the map.

8) Starcraft has no water units whatsoever. In Total Annihilation, you can build entire bases on or under the water!

9) In Starcraft, there is no way to reclaim the minerals of dead units, buildings, and incomplete buildings (not that there is any debris from buildings, of course, as it "magically disappears"). In Total Annihilation, all destroyed units and buildings leave behind scrap metal which can be extracted and reused. You can even extract the metal from operational units and buildings, friend or foe.

10) In Starcraft, all units see in a circular radius, with small line of sight restrictions from large mountains. In Total Annihilation, you can choose between circular line of sight as in Starcraft, permanent line of sight as in Command & Conquer or true line of sight, where units cannot see through walls or over cliffs.

11) In Starcraft, all units shoot in a circular radius, including through wall and over cliffs. The projectiles are not effected by elevation, wind, or gravity. Total Annihilation uses true physics to determine the path of projectiles.

12) In Starcraft, the only change in elevation is onto plateaus and bridges and such, but you're not really "above" anyone as far as the game is concerned. Total Annihilation has everything from small hills to huge mountains that affect the game dramatically.

13) You can not see the energy of a unit unless it is selected in Starcraft. In Total Annihilation, you can see the remaining armour of all units on the screen at once, or turn that off if you prefer more atmosphere.

14) In Starcraft, aircraft can not land. In Total Annihilation, not only do aircraft land, but some can do so underwater.

15) The music in Starcraft is all played on a synthesizer. The music in Total Annihilation is played by a real orchestra and if you prefer, you can put in different CDs and play anything you want.

16) In Starcraft, you can't deselect your selected unit ever, unless they die or go into a assimilator/extractor! In Total Annihilation, you can always deselect everything by right clicking.

17) Right clicking in Starcraft uses "smart commands," but left clicking only uses commands that have been selected. In Total Annihilation, left clicking uses "smart commands," unless you have a command selected. Then it uses that command. Right clicking deselects. Note that you can change the mouse settings in the options window in TA to mimic that of StarCraft.

18) In Starcraft, the only way to have a unit hold fire is to move him around or to ally with the enemy. In Total Annihilation, you can set units to hold fire, to return fire only, or to fire at will.

19) At a Starcraft unit constructing building, the only command you can give units built there is a rally point. In Total Annihilation, you can tell units where to go and set waypoints; you can have them hold fire, return fire, or fire at will; and you can have them hold position, maneuver, or roam at their destination. You can even set them to a patrol route before they exit the building!

20) StarCraft only has one construction unit. Total Annihilation has nine different construction units. Each of them can build different types of structures at varying speeds.

21) With the spawned version of Starcraft, you can only play a game hosted by the person with the CD that you used to install StarCraft. In Total Annihilation, with the spawn, you can play any multiplayer game, so long as the CDlayer ratio is at least 1:3.

22) With Starcraft online games, you have to play IPX simulated games on the internet, so you cannot use IP addresses. In Total Annihilation, you can be the server which cuts out the middle man and speeds up games, but if you want, you can always choose to play with simulated IPX.

23) In Starcraft, flying units do not fly; they hover. They are more like flying vehicles. All air units in Total Annihilation use a physics engine to determine the flight path, really bank, and do not stop in mid air like all flying units in Starcraft.

24) Projectiles in Starcraft always hit their target and do damage, whether it appears so or not. Projectiles in Total Annihilation use a physics engine to determine whether they hit or miss their targets and the damage is determined by how close the explosion was to the target.

25) Units in Starcraft cannot fire while moving. If you set them to, every unit in Total Annihilation will automatically aim and fire at enemy units in range, moving or not. This is great for hit and run missions or 'driveby shootings'.

26) Many weapons in Starcraft do not have projectiles. For example, there is a siege tank with its massive artillery shells and marines' gauss rifles that travel at infinite velocity, and then the explosion just appears on the target. Every weapon in Total Annihilation fires a projectile using a physics engine that determines how to hit the target.

27) In Starcraft the largest maps are 256x256. Total Annihilation has maps at least four times that size, for longer and more thought out strategies.

28) In Starcraft there are only two ways to get resources - mining minerals and vespene gas. In Total Annihilation there are several ways to get resources. You can reclaim plants and rocks, you can use metal extractors, metal makers, many different energy producers, and most units produce a bit of energy themselves.

29) In Starcraft if your hatchery/command center/nexus is destroyed, you keep your resources somehow, so that marine had better have deep pockets. In Total Annihilation your Commander stores all your metal and energy, so if he dies you lose most of your resources. You can also build metal and energy storage facilities so you can have a higher maximum resources capacity. Construction plants and several units also store resources.

30) Starcraft has crystals and vespene geysers growing out of the surface of space stations. Total Annihilation drills the metal out of the space station.

31) The Starcraft storyline in the manual states that the Protoss race teleport all their prebuilt buildings and warriors from the Aiur (The Protoss homeworld). However, when fighting a battle on Aiur, the Protoss gain no advantage whatsoever. In non-campaign maps TA does not include the homeworlds and therefore does not have to deal with this problem.

32) In Starcraft a marine can shoot a burrowed Zergling on the other side of a mountain wall past a barracks behind a tree underneath a Siege tank with pinpoint accuracy! In Total Annihilation you cannot.

33) In Starcraft, you cannot choose your colour. It is selected for you randomly. You are just as likely to get purple or yellow as something you want. In TA, you have a choice of ten different colours, including black.

34) Starcraft has no way at all to get new units/structures into the game, other than expansion sets, because the units are hard coded into the StarCraft engine. Total Annihilation's game engine was built specifically to load units found in the directory. When booting up the game it searches the directory and says "Oh a new unit, I'll just add him in here!" and you can then play with it normally. You can also download new units online that were posted at Cavedog's website weekly, and from many others.

35) Multiplayer lag in Starcraft is presented by the game momentarily pausing and commands being delayed by up to five seconds. Lag in Total Annihilation multiplayer simply slows the game down.

36) In Starcraft it's harder to control your units because of the unsatisfactory unit AI. For example, when trying to move a dragoon up stairs he will move jerkily up the stairs, and then decide to go back down and try to go onto the higher platform in a different way. You have to manually click for each step you want him to take. In Total Annihilation units go where you want, when you want, in the most efficient way possible most of the time.

37) In Starcraft when you initially set up the game to host, you can not change the settings when the game has been hosted. If you decide you want to play a different map, you have to completely rehost the game. IIn Total Annihilation you can change all of the settings (except for game name) while the game is being hosted, and then view the settings even while in the middle of the game.

38) In Starcraft if you want to restrict units from play, must build a custom scenario and disable the desired units for each player. In Total Annihilation, when hosting the game, meaning you can edit the unit restrictions with a few clicks you can limit the number of that unit available in the game at any time by one player, or completely prevent them from being used altogether. Other players in the game can also view the unit limits/restrictions.

39) In Starcraft all of the super weapons (nuclear missiles, psionic storms) are impossible to stop after they are casted/lauched. In Total Annihilation, you can build missile defense systems which fire anti-nukes and takes out the missile in mid air before it reaches your base. Note that the antinukes also take out other ICBMs and you can build mobile versions.

40) In Total Annihilation, most weapons as well as units are an object in the game, meaning that a Big Bertha could very well hit a bomber flying past or a nuke could hit a fighter flying overhead. In Starcraft, all weapons are mere graphical effects, and nothing like this can ever happen.
41) In SC a unit armed with more than one weapon (wraith, goliath, scout) cannot shoot both of them. In TA, units can have up to 3 weapons and can fire all at once.

42) Units do not decrease in spee when going up an incline, neither do they tilt or do anything neat.

43) Units in SC do not explode when they die. They have a pretty graphic placed on them, then they disappear, doing no damage to their surroundings. TA units can give off huge explosions, small explosions or normal explosions, all which send debris and unit pieces flying away, depending on the damage taken.

44) No radar in SC. All that you have to detect things with are LOS. TA has radars to detect units and sonar to actually SEE things underwater aswell as detecting.

45) No REALLY long range units. You cannot shell someone from a long distance (siegtanks come closest, but they really don't shoot that far). In the movies in SC they use artillery against a dragoon.

46) Units in SC cannot self destruct. If you don't want that bunker you have to attack it to destroy it. TA has selfdestruct.

47) TA has more lighting effects. When units get hit, their is light. When units explode there is light on other units. When units fire there is light. In SC the only light effects are when a unit fires, and when a nuke goes off.

List of mods for TA:
Engines:
Spring
TA:3d
Unreal Annihilation

Balancers:
Uberhack
Bugfix
XTA
TA Works project
TA: Devolution
TA: Reloaded
Thunderball
The Pack
Warmonger
Evolva Models
Absolute Annihilation
CornCobMan's Mod
TA 4.0

TCs:
Armoured Typhoon
Command and Conquer TA
TA Mech wars
Axis and Allies TA/Spring
Warhammer 40,000 TA
Gundam Annihilation
Dune TA
Operation Barbarossa
World Domination
Operation Polaris
WW2 Reborn
Star Wars TA
Final Frontier
Dark Suns
Independance War
War at sea
Opherium 3
TA: Battle for paradise
Total Battletech
Epic: Spring
Imperial Authority
Rock Paper Scissors
TA: Method of Desctruction
TAAW
LOTR: TA
Battletanx TA

Races:
TLL
Talon
Rumad
Rhyoss
TJT
Mynn
Xect
AC/DC
Argon
Aquarians
BioHazard
Rogue
TA-AK
UN
The Nafilen Addon

Unit Packs/Addons:
Aftermath design Unit pack
MAGMA Pack
Micro Pack
Raven TA
UTASP
TAUCP
TAUIP
Ultimate War
Seal Pack
GMTA
UDG 40
Spider Pack
Aerial Assault Force
Emergency Pack
Starship Pack

Total number of Mods: 72
TA has over 5000 single downloadable 3rd party units.


List of mods for Starcraft
Action Starcraft
Aliens VS predator
Aqueous Rift
Brutkrieg's TC pack
Fury of the Ancient
Gundam Century
Heidomus Kaladonmus
NeoTech
Open Rebellion
Robotech
SC Sickel
Team fortress
Star Trek Dominion War
YoshiCraft
Project Revolution
StarCraft D6
StarWars Shadows of Vengeance
NanoWar
WormsCraft

Total number of Mods: 19
Don't know about single downloadable 3rd party units for SC.


TA Awards:
Best Game of All Time, PC Games 1998
Gamer's Choice Award, Best Real-Time Strategy Game, PC Gamer
1998 Blister Award Winner, "Best Strategy Game of 1997", Electric Playground
1997 Game of the Year, GameSpot
Best Strategy Game of 1997, GameSpot
Best Multiplayer Game 1997, GameSpot
Best Music 1997, GameSpot
1997 Game of the Year, GameSpot Reader's Choice Awards
1997 Best Strategy Game, GameSpot Reader's Choice Awards
1997 Best War Game, Happy Puppy's Golden Fire Hydrant Award
1997 Best Strategy Game, PC Guru Magazine, Hungary
Best RTS Game, GAME.EXE Magazine, Russia 1998
Best Game of the Year 1997, PC Soulces, France
Silver Trophy Award, PC Magazine Loisirs, France
Top Game Award for Five Consecutive Months, PC Jeux France
Best RTS Game 1997, Reader's Choice Award, PC Gamer Online
Best Real-Time Strategy Game 1997, Adrenaline Vault
Best Strategy Game 1997, Reader's Award, Games Domain
1997 Game of the Year, CompuNews
1997 Best Sound/Music, GamePen
Best Strategy Game of 1997, Gamezilla.com
Game of the Year, Game Review Central
Best Real-Time Strategy Game of 1997, Ultra Game Players Magazine
CG Choice Award, Computer Gaming World, 1998
Best of the Best A+ Award, PC Games 1998
Family PC Tested-Recommended, Family PC 1998
Stamp of Approval, Computer Games Strategy Plus
Editor's Choice Award 1997, Online Gaming Review
Special Achievement in Music 1997, Online Gaming Review
Best Game of the Year 1997, Honorable Mention, Online Gaming Review
Best Game of 1997, Reader's Knockout Poll Award, Games Domain Review
Best PC Game of 1997, Video Games Palace
Gaming Product of the Year 1997, MeccaWorld
Best Strategy Game of 1997, Gamesmania
Gold Player Top-Rated 5 Star Award, PC Games Germany
Gold Award, PC Action Germany
Top Rated 5 Star Award 1997, PC Gaming World UK
Platin Award, PC Power
Innovation in Gaming Award 1997, PC Review
Editor's Choice Award, Game Worlds Network
Editor's Choice Award, Gaming Age
Editor's Choice Award 1997, All About Games
Awesome! Award 1997, Game Briefs
Killer Game Award 1997, The Cheater's Guild
OGR Preferred Award, Online Gaming Review
X-Picks Dazzler for 1997, Gamecenter
Hot! 4 Star Award, GAMERZedge
Hands-On Award, PC GamePro
Editor's Pick Award 1997, GameSpot
Buy Now! Award, San Francisco Guardian Plug & Play
Star Player Award, Games Machine
GamePower's 4-Lightning Bolt Award 1997
GamePen's Best of E3 Award 1997
Top 12 Games of Autumn, PC Games Europe
Hot Property Award 1997, MeccaWorld

Total: 55

Starcraft Awards:
Greatest Game of All Time - GameSpot
Number-one selling PC Game of 1998 - PC Data
Game of the Year -- Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (AIAS)
Game of the Year -- Computer Gaming World
Game of the Year -- European Consumer Trade Show Industry Award
Game of the Year -- PC Powerplay
Game of the Year -- Gamesmania
Best Game of the Year -- PCFan
Taiwan Gamer's Choice of Game of the Year. -- Chinese Edition of PC Gamer or PC Gamer (China)
Hall of Fame -- Gamespy
Strategy Game of the Year -- Computer Games Strategy Plus
Strategy Game of the Year -- Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (AIAS)
Real Time Strategy Game of The Year -- PC Gamer
Strategy Game of the Year -- Gamespot
Strategy Game of the Year -- Games Domain
Strategy Game of the Year -- Gamesmania
Best Real Time Strategy Game - Editor's Choice -- Gamezilla
Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Gamezilla
Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Gamecenter
Best Real Time Strategy Game - Reader's Choice -- Duelist Magazine
Best Real-Time Strategy Title -- PCFan
Mulitplayer Game of The Year - 1999 Milia Awards
Multiplayer Game of the Year -- Gamecenter
Mulitplayer Game of The Year -- The Gamers Net
Best Multiplayer Title -- PCFan
Best New Multiplayer Online Game -- 1999 Codie Awards
Best use of Online Multiplayer Gaming (Editor Award) -- HotGames.com
Best Online Game - Reader's Choice -- Duelist Magazine
Special Achievement Award - Best Story -- Gamespot
Special Achievement Award - Best Multiplayer Game -- Gamespot
Best use of Sound in a Computer Game (Reader Award) -- HotGames.com
#1 Reader's Top 50 -- PC Gamer
Best Depth -- PC Accelerator
5 out of 5 Stars Editor's Choice-- Computer Gaming World
5 out of 5 Gameworthy Rating -- C/NET Gamecenter
9.4 out of 10 -- Online Game Review
92% Editors Choice -- PC Gamer
4.5 out of 5 star rating - Computer games Strategy Plus
5 out of 5 star rating - Mac 3D Total Action
9.1 out of 10 rating -- Gamespot
A+ -- Gameweek
4 out of 4 star rating - USA Today

From: http://www.supcomuniverse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=510

Made me chuckle.


That forum post made my blood boil.

I think I've read that list before so I won't read it again, but the first posts in the thread linked seemed respectful I'll just save my good humour and not read anymore of it..

That being said, I like TA, used to play it a ton when I was a kid and played a lot with Malmis a few months back, fun stuff despite me being pretty horrible at it

The interface in that game IS inferior to SC tho, I mean you can queue buildings and shit but the hotkeys are.. unusuable? You can't even center on your god damn units!! :D


My analogy fits this perfectly however, since wheelchair baseball use the same rules as normal baseball but with the limitations of wheelchairs. Same is sc2 using the same rules as starcraft but withouth the same UI limitations.

Klockan, this is bullshit. I can just as easily say that MBS is the equivalent of training wheels on a bike or some other handicap-tool.

DUCY? (Sorry I've been reading too much 2+2 so I had to write this at least once..)

All depends on what you view as the natural state/neutral gear.

On September 10 2007 09:35 Klockan3 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 10 2007 09:31 Aphelion wrote:
On September 10 2007 09:30 Klockan3 wrote:
On September 10 2007 09:21 Aphelion wrote:
On September 10 2007 09:10 Oc wrote:
On September 10 2007 08:31 Brutalisk wrote:
Everyone should also remember that SC2 does not equal SC+MBS, which probably would be imbalanced (any change to SC would probably imbalance it).
SC2 is being designed from the beginning on with MBS in it, and it will eventually be balanced with MBS.


Exactly.


Everyone also needs to remember SC2 is also a sequel of SC, and that RTSes can only deviate so much from it without being a total piece of modern shit. And also remember that your hypothetical "alternative macro tasks" are completely unfleshed out and basically non-existent.

Everyone also need to remember that sequels usually come with the UI enhancements that is proper for its time of release, while keeping the same theme of gameplay as its preceder.


Everyone also needs to remember that every single one of those RTSes and sequels have been POSes compared to SC.

But you know:
1: Blizzard made starcraft.
2: Blizzard hasnt tried to recreate the gameplay of starcraft before, and noone else have the dedication to make a game as good as starcraft so all the starcraft clones failed and are now forgotten.
3: Since we only have starcraft wich plays like starcraft you cant point at any game as proof that its bad since none of them were made by blizzard as a starcraft game, warcraft 3 were made as a rpg/rts with small battles wich is why it plays like it does, it has nothing to do with the UI.
4: Now since we know that we cant know the effects of the UI changes, why shouldnt blizzard go with the option that gives the most sales and largest playerbase? Since we know for a fact that a lot more people will get turned off by the dated UI than hardcore fans wich for some reason wont buy it just beacuse of the UI improvements.

IMO Armies of Exigo played like starcraft and could have succeeded if EA hadn't killed it by not advertising the game - AT ALL.

Although I never played it much it seemed veeeeery good (btw it did have MBS).
Moderatortell the guy that interplanatar interaction is pivotal to terrans variety of optionitudals in the pre-midgame preperatories as well as the protosstinal deterriggation of elite zergling strikes - Stimey n | Formerly FrozenArbiter
Prev 1 10 11 12 13 14 39 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 13h 14m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nathanias 281
Hui .237
StarCraft: Brood War
ivOry 9
Dota 2
monkeys_forever688
League of Legends
Dendi882
syndereN84
Counter-Strike
Fnx 1393
Stewie2K747
Super Smash Bros
Liquid`Ken36
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu611
Other Games
summit1g7722
FrodaN3319
C9.Mang0202
ForJumy 61
PPMD41
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• musti20045 26
• Hupsaiya 23
• davetesta21
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• blackmanpl 46
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Other Games
• imaqtpie1679
• Shiphtur502
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
13h 14m
Serral vs Cure
Solar vs Classic
OSC
16h 14m
CranKy Ducklings
1d 12h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 16h
CSO Cup
1d 18h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 20h
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
4 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.