EPTWhy MBS Is Essential To a Competitive SC2 - Page 12
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Gandalf
Pakistan1905 Posts
| ||
Last Romantic
United States20661 Posts
| ||
|
OrderlyChaos
United States1115 Posts
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
Baltimore, USA22254 Posts
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. | ||
|
Last Romantic
United States20661 Posts
Other things like warp gates, merc haven operate differently than normal buildings. That may help. | ||
|
ArC_man
United States2798 Posts
| ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
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
United States20903 Posts
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. | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
OK sorry, dont have time to read through 12 pages of posts. | ||
|
1esu
United States303 Posts
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
United States2921 Posts
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. | ||
|
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
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
United States309 Posts
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. | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
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? | ||
|
1esu
United States303 Posts
On September 10 2007 13:58 MyLostTemple wrote: 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
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 09 2007 20:00 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: 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: 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). | ||
|
SuperJongMan
Jamaica11586 Posts
| ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On September 10 2007 14:32 1esu wrote: 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. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 10 2007 04:21 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: 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: 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. 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: 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). | ||
| ||
