|
On September 14 2007 04:19 Phyre wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2007 04:02 aW]Nevermind wrote:On September 14 2007 03:58 Klockan3 wrote:On September 14 2007 03:52 aW]Nevermind wrote:
I dunno how we arguee here about macro been more fun than micro honestly that's just plain stupid smashing keyboard on ur factorys is not fun, fun is becomming a master using spider mines. Everyone knows that, but mastering spidermines when you dont have to think about buildings every 10 seconds is much easier than the other, wich would make the goal of mastering spidermines something not as distant wich would take out the "Im so awsome since i can micro spidermines" from those that really can. In short, more apm to micro= Old microfeats that were impressive wont be impressive anylonger. Thats a fact, then you can argue about a ton of sensless shit on if there will be more harder micro feats than before or if everyone will micro at the same degree now etc, but since theres no concluding arguments to that i wont take them up here. Yes okay im pretty sure the average gamer will have a spider mine micro as good as boxer if we just implement MBS sir you got a point here. Micro doesn't have a limit on how much you can improv. Maybe they should remove dribbling from basketball or let you carry the ball in your hands in soccer (football) so they can focus on the important fun stuff like shooting goals. In fact, we should have all the players line up, stand still, and take shots at the goal/hoop. This way they can focus entirely in the more important stuff and ignore all the tedious stuff like actually getting to the goal/hoop...
Why not make SC players juggle 10 grenades while playing, it will surely require skill!
Seriously, these awfully stupid arguments(if you can call them arguments at all) have no place here.
|
On September 14 2007 04:14 Phyre wrote:
- Saying any "noob" can just macrowhore and beat a better player with far superior micro is just silly. If it's so easy that anyone can macrowhore then why doesn't the better player macro? If he focuses entirely on macro then he should out macro the noob. If he macros just enough to match the noob's macro then he should have some left over attention to spend on micro thus beating the noob's equal numbers.
I don't want to be a loud mouth , but i am the best wc3 player of my country, and one of the best of south america, you can bet i have a far superior micro than the average player i played ICCUP.
I just put up some examples, i only played brood war for 6 weeks this year, but the last days i was already used to the idea of having to macro whore a lot, but it wasn't fun for me to play or watch a replay of 2 guys just massing to 200 suply and then attack each other, then a macro whore for the next 10 minutes, gets too old too fast, but looking at korean replays they do micro but only because they are too good.
And to the guy who i said i should play dota because i only control a heroe he doesn't even know what micro is, My grand father always says that if you are going to arguee about something you better know what your talking about.
|
Guys... all of these arguments that are appearing from both sides have been addressed far earlier in the thread. Read the OP and perhaps the first 3-5 pages please before commenting. This is just a complete rehash of what has already been thoroughly discussed. Especially about the "more skill" required argument.
|
On September 14 2007 04:14 Phyre wrote:
- People that complain that noobs will get bored because SC boils down to macro wars confuse me. The vast majority of noobs do not know how to macro well and they will simply micro. As long as they play against players of similar skill there will be plenty of low unit count micro wars. When I didn't know about the pro scene and just played friendly games with my nooby friends the focus was mainly on micro. Think back to when you just started Starcraft, just finished the campaign and play mainly against friends on BGH. The game was SIMPLE. No macro involved, just basic base building and trying to micro as best you could. At the low levels you will continue to see this trend of micro > macro provided the game is simple enough to learn and play initially. Starcraft did this nicely as it did not have very complex systems to learn and play but the depth was there once you mastered those basics.
Um... when I started off as a BGH noob about 10 years ago, myself and everyone I knew focused at least 95% on macro. I don't know where you are getting the "noobs only know how to micro" part from. We didn't even know what the concept of micro was, but we did mass our huge hordes of goons, zeals, tanks, hydras, or w/e we wanted to and spent most of our scarce apm on that. Our micro consisted of at most a-attack and going back to mass more units. Ask any noob what "micro" is and they'll have no clue. Even in War3, the lower you go, the more macro focused the games are with barely any micro involved. Micro can only be learned through experience, while macro is simply building units, which is what every noob is taught when they first start off.
Even now, go join some fastest or BGH map in SC and I'll guarantee you that you will find micro is extremely lacking and that the game is almost purely macro based the lower you go (as can be evidenced by the lack of hotkey usage).
If you make macro a bit easier, then this frees up a bit of time for the slowest of players and could entice them into actually controlling their troops instead of suiciding a-attack, which then let's them gradually build up skill and understanding of the game.
|
On September 14 2007 04:11 SoleSteeler wrote:
Sorry if this has been asked before, but, does anyone know if Blizzard intentionally left out "MBS" in the original Starcraft? Or was it just never thought of before, or difficult to implement. I'm sure the idea of selecting multiple buildings wasn't some wildly unheard of idea when they were designing the original game...
Actually I think it was a pretty novel concept at the time. I don't believe any other RTS from the same period had MBS allowed in it. The only other major competitors were Age of Empires, C&C and TA. None of them had this feature as far as I'm aware.
|
On September 14 2007 04:30 lololol wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2007 04:19 Phyre wrote:On September 14 2007 04:02 aW]Nevermind wrote:On September 14 2007 03:58 Klockan3 wrote:On September 14 2007 03:52 aW]Nevermind wrote:
I dunno how we arguee here about macro been more fun than micro honestly that's just plain stupid smashing keyboard on ur factorys is not fun, fun is becomming a master using spider mines. Everyone knows that, but mastering spidermines when you dont have to think about buildings every 10 seconds is much easier than the other, wich would make the goal of mastering spidermines something not as distant wich would take out the "Im so awsome since i can micro spidermines" from those that really can. In short, more apm to micro= Old microfeats that were impressive wont be impressive anylonger. Thats a fact, then you can argue about a ton of sensless shit on if there will be more harder micro feats than before or if everyone will micro at the same degree now etc, but since theres no concluding arguments to that i wont take them up here. Yes okay im pretty sure the average gamer will have a spider mine micro as good as boxer if we just implement MBS sir you got a point here. Micro doesn't have a limit on how much you can improv. Maybe they should remove dribbling from basketball or let you carry the ball in your hands in soccer (football) so they can focus on the important fun stuff like shooting goals. In fact, we should have all the players line up, stand still, and take shots at the goal/hoop. This way they can focus entirely in the more important stuff and ignore all the tedious stuff like actually getting to the goal/hoop... Why not make SC players juggle 10 grenades while playing, it will surely require skill! Seriously, these awfully stupid arguments(if you can call them arguments at all) have no place here.
It's an analogy dumbass and it's true. You don't see the pretty stuff in soccer without the fundamentals. Same for broodwar. It's really nto a hard concept...
|
Taking any example and making an analogy so far-fetched usually doesn't work. If you didn't need to dribble or just held the ball in soccer you're fundamentally changing the rules of the game (making it impossible to be a non-contact sport) and not just one aspect of the UI like in SC. UI should be analagous to the type of ball, stick, or w/e object the sport uses to play the game as it is the tool of the game, much like in SC. Rules from sports on the other hand are analagous to the tech tree and unit stats in SC. Macro is still there in SC even with MBS, but it's just made more streamlined and takes less repeated clicks (positive or negative depends on your personal view). Juggling grenades has nothing to do with the game at all. If you wanted a better example, see my OP where I explained why adding a War2 interface to SC would not be a good thing even though it raised skill, because it's due to artificial limitations.
|
On September 14 2007 04:45 aW]Nevermind wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2007 04:14 Phyre wrote:
- Saying any "noob" can just macrowhore and beat a better player with far superior micro is just silly. If it's so easy that anyone can macrowhore then why doesn't the better player macro? If he focuses entirely on macro then he should out macro the noob. If he macros just enough to match the noob's macro then he should have some left over attention to spend on micro thus beating the noob's equal numbers. I don't want to be a loud mouth , but i am the best wc3 player of my country, and one of the best of south america, you can bet i have a far superior micro than the average player i played ICCUP. I just put up some examples, i only played brood war for 6 weeks this year, but the last days i was already used to the idea of having to macro whore a lot, but it wasn't fun for me to play or watch a replay of 2 guys just massing to 200 suply and then attack each other, then a macro whore for the next 10 minutes, gets too old too fast, but looking at korean replays they do micro but only because they are too good. And to the guy who i said i should play dota because i only control a heroe he doesn't even know what micro is, My grand father always says that if you are going to arguee about something you better know what your talking about.
Again, it's like how it was said before. Macro is the dribbling in soccer, while micro is the shooting. To be a great player, like the ones in Korea, you get good at both. Some get good relying just on micro, while others get good relying on their macro. But that's just it, they will be one dimensional and will never be as good as the guys who can do both.
A better example: football. Look at the Falcons when Vick was around. Now if running the football was the only way to score points, the Falcons probably would have won the last three SB's. But football—like Starcraft—is multidimensional. That's why the Falcons were never better than a mediocre team, they have no air game. Negate their run game and you basically won. That's why teams like the Patriots are contenders each year... they can play conservatively and run run run, or they can blow you out of the water by putting up 400 yards passing.
Marginalizing macro with MBS makes means diluting the game. No more varied styles of play... it's just gonna be a micro game, heads up, every-single-time. It would be liek going back to the old style of football, where the only things quarterbacks did was hand off to a running back all game. Sure, it might be kind of interesting at first, but it's one dimensional and grows old fast. Players will only have one way of winning the game, instead of many.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
On September 14 2007 04:45 aW]Nevermind wrote:
it wasn't fun for me to play or watch a replay of 2 guys just massing to 200 suply and then attack each other, then a macro whore for the next 10 minutes, gets too old too fast
It's not too fun to watch 2 guys killing creeps following the same pattern and using the same damn units for 10 minutes each game of War3 and just TP out as soon as anyone smells trouble. What, I don't have a clue about what War3 is all about? Probably, but then you don't have a clue what Starcraft is all about if you've played it for 6 weeks.
My grand father always says that if you are going to arguee about something you better know what your talking about.
If you respect your grandfather so much, why don't YOU follow his words in the first place?
|
As pointed out by quite many here already; Blizz will most likely keep MBS in sc2 in order to have a well functioning interface for new players, anything else would greatly surprise me. In order for a game to be good, it has to be challenging for players at all levels. This means that if the game is too hard it will lead to frustration (which is especially bad for gamers at low and average level), and if the game isn't challenging enough it would end up being boring. Some examples are chess and poker, easy to learn the rules but always challenging, going by the concept "a minute to learn, a lifetime to master". The interface should be as friendly and intuitive as possible to newcomers, but still not made too easy for the experienced players.
MBS will thus be almost a necessity in order to satisfy the masses, but it brings up problems for high level players. To the posters who refered to wc3: I can confirm that wc3 is in many ways "too easy" for progamers. In sc there's seemingly always something which could be done better or faster, in wc3 many things are so easy to do (on semipro to pro level) that the only aspect which distinguish players are just how perfect they execute a strat. At such a level in wc3 when both players plays close to perfection, the small things matters more, and randomness takes over (item drops, map pos etc). For professional wc3 players this is quite a headache, as the chance of losing to a "decent but worse player" will always be quite high when the macro is so easy to execute. This is relevant to the arguments about MBS shrinking the gap between players, it's hard to win an easy game (it's for example hard to have a 90% winrate in rock-scissor-paper). Of course if a less skilled player could never beat a better player then it wouldn't be that exciting, but it shouldn't occur that often.
I've tested sc2 and I must say that some of the "fear" that the game might become too easy in terms of macro seems reasonable. For example with terran you can have 10 rax with reactors and 10 fac+reactors in group1, and 10 rax+tech and 10 fac+tech in group2. You could then macro 40 buildings with 1mm[tab]vv, 2c[tab]t. For protoss it's even easier if you are just massing one unit from all gateways. However there is a chance that it will still be impossible to reach perfection in macro and micro multitasking. Maybe it was just the low unit count in wc3 which made that game too easy (i.e too small gap between players), and that progamers practicing sc2 all day long will always have something in their game which could have been done faster and better. Maybe the new standard for example will add a new dimension to the use of split armies, doing 4-5 battles at the same time on different places while constantly building units\structures\expands and keep scouting.
To sum it up it seems determined that sc2 will have MBS. Personally I think it's good to have MBS as it helps new gamers quite a lot, but it might lead to an oversimplified game for the progamers. It would be nice if someone managed to come up with an idea of new aspects in the game which gamers had to spend time. Something which the new gamers didn't have to care much about (because they have enough going on already), but which kept challenging the top players and distinguished the semipro's from the pro's.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 14 2007 03:52 aW]Nevermind wrote:
I dunno how we arguee here about macro been more fun than micro honestly that's just plain stupid smashing keyboard on ur factorys is not fun, fun is becomming a master using spider mines.
I will enjoy multitask on sc2, with the AK system and versatily to deply troops, like Drop pod and Warp in multitask is going to be insane, or thats i hope, that's what you guys arguee about macro, is not really important smashing your keyboard to mass more zealots and goons, is the fact that you need to be on 2 or 3 places at the same time, in that case i find multitask very very entertaining, makes the game feel faster with the new AK system players must be really careful about something like a Reaper harras, so many ideas.
You could send a SCV to built that special rax that builts Reapers, since you can built like 4 of them really fast you could do that to harras your oponnent, and then "salvage" that rax to get your money back.
Drop pods are going to be a pain, in harras and versatility.
The add ons are going to be used on a very special way by pros.
etc etc the game will have more multitask that brood war, and i just hope blizzard puts enphasis on having an insane multitask with battles all over, but not a multitask to built more troops, but to actually fight or something more fun to do.
Thank you for telling me what's fun, I certainly wasn't capable of deciding what I find fun on my own.
/End sarcasm.
|
On September 14 2007 05:46 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2007 04:45 aW]Nevermind wrote:On September 14 2007 04:14 Phyre wrote:
- Saying any "noob" can just macrowhore and beat a better player with far superior micro is just silly. If it's so easy that anyone can macrowhore then why doesn't the better player macro? If he focuses entirely on macro then he should out macro the noob. If he macros just enough to match the noob's macro then he should have some left over attention to spend on micro thus beating the noob's equal numbers. I don't want to be a loud mouth , but i am the best wc3 player of my country, and one of the best of south america, you can bet i have a far superior micro than the average player i played ICCUP. I just put up some examples, i only played brood war for 6 weeks this year, but the last days i was already used to the idea of having to macro whore a lot, but it wasn't fun for me to play or watch a replay of 2 guys just massing to 200 suply and then attack each other, then a macro whore for the next 10 minutes, gets too old too fast, but looking at korean replays they do micro but only because they are too good. And to the guy who i said i should play dota because i only control a heroe he doesn't even know what micro is, My grand father always says that if you are going to arguee about something you better know what your talking about. Again, it's like how it was said before. Macro is the dribbling in soccer, while micro is the shooting. To be a great player, like the ones in Korea, you get good at both. Some get good relying just on micro, while others get good relying on their macro. But that's just it, they will be one dimensional and will never be as good as the guys who can do both. A better example: football. Look at the Falcons when Vick was around. Now if running the football was the only way to score points, the Falcons probably would have won the last three SB's. But football—like Starcraft—is multidimensional. That's why the Falcons were never better than a mediocre team, they have no air game. Negate their run game and you basically won. That's why teams like the Patriots are contenders each year... they can play conservatively and run run run, or they can blow you out of the water by putting up 400 yards passing. Marginalizing macro with MBS makes means diluting the game. No more varied styles of play... it's just gonna be a micro game, heads up, every-single-time. It would be liek going back to the old style of football, where the only things quarterbacks did was hand off to a running back all game. Sure, it might be kind of interesting at first, but it's one dimensional and grows old fast. Players will only have one way of winning the game, instead of many.
Hawk, I can see that you've put a decent amount of thought into this and have come up with a well-reasoned argument. I just want to make a few comments about them.
Firstly, macro being equivalent to the dribbling in soccer actually does make a lot of sense. You are saying that dribbling is a minimum requirement to be able to play soccer. However, I would also say that dribbling is a very basic and easily learned skill with a very low learning curve so this is very helpful in teaching kids the game of soccer. They won't be confused or frustrated by dribbling (unless they're too young) because it's very natural, intuitive and easy to pick up. There is also definitely a finite limit to how well you can dribble and most every soccer player can perform this very well. This is similar to many competitive sports out there (dribbling in basketball, skating in hockey, etc). So in this sense, I think the game of soccer and its dribbling is closer to macro in a game with MBS, where dribbling skill takes a backseat to other attributes of a player, such as endurance, running speed, shooting skill and game sense.
Macro in SC without MBS in the game, however, is very hard to master for most people except for the highest level of Korean pros and even they have imperfect macro. I guess, it could be analagous to forcing all soccer players to wear 50-kilo lead-plated shoes, as this definitely ups the challenge of the game by a lot (but also seems artificial). Only the best soccer players would become proficient in dribbling, but this could also become a barrier to entry for many new players wanting to play the game and decrease the player base.
As for the football example, I think this is more of describing strategies in the game. If the Falcons only knew how to win by passing the ball to Vick and making him run for the touchdowns, this would be analagous to a player who only knows how to win in SC by rushing the other player. He has no late game and no strategical sense, but does happen to be highly skilled in rushing. This however, only makes him a mediocre player and he only wins against players who cannot even handle an early game rush. Fortunately, both SC and football are not as one-dimensional as this and require a multitude of skills and tactics, otherwise they would be very shallow games. I don't think MBS would change this aspect of this game.
|
On September 14 2007 05:16 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2007 04:30 lololol wrote:On September 14 2007 04:19 Phyre wrote:On September 14 2007 04:02 aW]Nevermind wrote:On September 14 2007 03:58 Klockan3 wrote:On September 14 2007 03:52 aW]Nevermind wrote:
I dunno how we arguee here about macro been more fun than micro honestly that's just plain stupid smashing keyboard on ur factorys is not fun, fun is becomming a master using spider mines. Everyone knows that, but mastering spidermines when you dont have to think about buildings every 10 seconds is much easier than the other, wich would make the goal of mastering spidermines something not as distant wich would take out the "Im so awsome since i can micro spidermines" from those that really can. In short, more apm to micro= Old microfeats that were impressive wont be impressive anylonger. Thats a fact, then you can argue about a ton of sensless shit on if there will be more harder micro feats than before or if everyone will micro at the same degree now etc, but since theres no concluding arguments to that i wont take them up here. Yes okay im pretty sure the average gamer will have a spider mine micro as good as boxer if we just implement MBS sir you got a point here. Micro doesn't have a limit on how much you can improv. Maybe they should remove dribbling from basketball or let you carry the ball in your hands in soccer (football) so they can focus on the important fun stuff like shooting goals. In fact, we should have all the players line up, stand still, and take shots at the goal/hoop. This way they can focus entirely in the more important stuff and ignore all the tedious stuff like actually getting to the goal/hoop... Why not make SC players juggle 10 grenades while playing, it will surely require skill! Seriously, these awfully stupid arguments(if you can call them arguments at all) have no place here. It's an analogy dumbass and it's true. You don't see the pretty stuff in soccer without the fundamentals. Same for broodwar. It's really nto a hard concept...
And the fundamentals of SC are clicking 5 factories? THAT'S what makes BW the best RTS ever made and the most popular esport? Comparing non-MBS to dribbling in basketball or using hands in soccer are the most retarded analogies ever. Don't pretend to play sports when you have no idea what you're talking about. And don't call that guy a dumbass, he was just pointing out your idiocy. Seriously, kill yourself now dude. Uninstall StarCraft and then uninstall life, you fail so hard.
|
Everyone, stop the flaming please. Attacking the other person doesn't make your argument more true. We may disagree with each other, but we are still entitled to our own opinions, as long as they are not offensive to anyone else.
|
Also remember that if a flame war, or a flame skirmish breaks out, this thread would likely be closed, and most people would no longer be able to see both sides of the argument. A good example of a good debate would be the one between SpiritoftheTuna and orangedude yesterday. There was no anger, and each side actually got their points across.
|
On September 14 2007 05:46 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2007 04:45 aW]Nevermind wrote:On September 14 2007 04:14 Phyre wrote:
- Saying any "noob" can just macrowhore and beat a better player with far superior micro is just silly. If it's so easy that anyone can macrowhore then why doesn't the better player macro? If he focuses entirely on macro then he should out macro the noob. If he macros just enough to match the noob's macro then he should have some left over attention to spend on micro thus beating the noob's equal numbers. I don't want to be a loud mouth , but i am the best wc3 player of my country, and one of the best of south america, you can bet i have a far superior micro than the average player i played ICCUP. I just put up some examples, i only played brood war for 6 weeks this year, but the last days i was already used to the idea of having to macro whore a lot, but it wasn't fun for me to play or watch a replay of 2 guys just massing to 200 suply and then attack each other, then a macro whore for the next 10 minutes, gets too old too fast, but looking at korean replays they do micro but only because they are too good. And to the guy who i said i should play dota because i only control a heroe he doesn't even know what micro is, My grand father always says that if you are going to arguee about something you better know what your talking about. Again, it's like how it was said before. Macro is the dribbling in soccer, while micro is the shooting. To be a great player, like the ones in Korea, you get good at both. Some get good relying just on micro, while others get good relying on their macro. But that's just it, they will be one dimensional and will never be as good as the guys who can do both.
Good point, but my problem with using dribbling soccer/basketball as an analogy, as I've said, is that dribbling in both sports isn't an optional feature; it's required for those sports to be non-contact sports, since it's practically impossible to steal a ball from someone holding it without contact. Basketball and soccer were created as non-contact sports, but Starcraft was created as a real-time strategy game. Now, I accept that MBS might screw up the balance between macro and micro on the higher levels of play (and imo, might fix the imbalance towards macro in the lower levels, if this thread is any indication), but I don't see how MBS makes SC2 any less 'real-time' or less of a 'strategy' game.
|
Oh, and here's some interesting reading, from the Major League Gaming FAQ:
For a competitive game to be considered as a title for MLG's roster of games, here are some base characteristics/requirements:
- huge following
- appeals to both new and experienced players alike--i.e. easy enough to pick up, but plenty of depth to make a veteran continue playing
- an attempt at reducing the concept of slippery slope
- skill-based (in one form or another) more than based on luck (though luck always has at a least a small factor due to the nature of life)
- long lifetime, which is determined by the players or community for the game
- the huge following is actually willing to come out to tournaments (this can be demonstrated through consistent tournament turnouts over time, with numbers that exceed minimal ones)
- good showcase for media purposes (not necessarily but can be innovation? updated graphically? etc.)
Unless it can be demonstrated that a game can meet most of these prerequisites, a game will probably not be considered by MLG to be included in the roster.
Relevant statistics (tournament turnouts, demographics--regions with highest concentrations of players--and so on) should also be gathered and organized into presentable form.
Furthermore, most tournament-worthy games, at least the successful ones, have strong hardcore communities. For the most part, these communities also hold local, player-run tournaments all around the country (in the US, for instance), and should the size of the community grow to a sufficient size, the community painstakingly organizes larger, national tournaments or majors.
It was done with Halo 1 (and still is, to a lesser extent). It was and still is being done with Smash (Super Smash Bros. Melee as well as its predecessor). It was and still is being done with "traditional" fighting games.
This strong community presence and dedication is a necessary characteristic for a competitive game to be successful, as it demonstrates with certainty the level of dedication of many of the game's players. Otherwise, holding national tournaments for a competitive game without precedence will most likely result in failure. After all, it is unrealistic to expect that MLG, or any other league or organization, can hold national events for a game and subsequently create or organize its community--no, MLG can only further and benefit the competitive game and its community, potentially by leaps and bounds. The community must be established and organized beforehand, even if only to a moderate degree.
The question, then, is, does this particular game you refer to have this sort of community? Or is it a game that has a large fan base but consisting of primarily casual players, content with single-player and online play, without a strong and large hardcore community? Or a game with a small fan base, regardless of its makeup (hardcore or casual)?
Major League Gaming, for those of you who don't know, is the home of the Halo 2, Gears of War, and Super Smash Bros. Melee professional tournaments/leagues. They easily rank among the most respected e-sports organizations in the USA, if not the world.
|
Isn't MBS just like mass larva select? If that's the case MBS should be okay. Pros probably won't use it much to any advantage and the masses will mass
|
On September 14 2007 09:36 Vietnam_Oi wrote:
Isn't MBS just like mass larva select? If that's the case MBS should be okay. Pros probably won't use it much to any advantage and the masses will mass
You can't hotkey mass-selected larvae IIRC, but you can hotkey mass-selected buildings.
|
On September 14 2007 04:45 aW]Nevermind wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2007 04:14 Phyre wrote:
- Saying any "noob" can just macrowhore and beat a better player with far superior micro is just silly. If it's so easy that anyone can macrowhore then why doesn't the better player macro? If he focuses entirely on macro then he should out macro the noob. If he macros just enough to match the noob's macro then he should have some left over attention to spend on micro thus beating the noob's equal numbers. I don't want to be a loud mouth , but i am the best wc3 player of my country, and one of the best of south america, you can bet i have a far superior micro than the average player i played ICCUP. I just put up some examples, i only played brood war for 6 weeks this year, but the last days i was already used to the idea of having to macro whore a lot, but it wasn't fun for me to play or watch a replay of 2 guys just massing to 200 suply and then attack each other, then a macro whore for the next 10 minutes, gets too old too fast, but looking at korean replays they do micro but only because they are too good. And to the guy who i said i should play dota because i only control a heroe he doesn't even know what micro is, My grand father always says that if you are going to arguee about something you better know what your talking about.
For someone that only played a game for 6 weeks you seem awfully sure of your judgements on the game. I played WC3 for 2-3 years and I don't feel fully qualified to cast concrete judgements about what a sequel should be, especially not against the opinions of the people that do still actively play.
If you don't find it fun to "macro whore" then stay away from Starcraft? If I don't like a game I see no reason to push for that game's sequel to be a different game than it's predecessor just to suit me. I don't see Counter Strike players going to Unreal forums saying that the next Unreal game should feature present day weapons or vice versa. If you disliked SC1 then why would you want to ruin SC2 for it's core fan base to suit your needs?
I was the guy who suggested that perhaps DotA might be more your thing. This wasn't meant as an insult by the way. Also, would you mind explaining to me what your definition of micro is? Just so we're on the same page in that regard.
Your grandfather sounds like a wise person. I'll try to stay away from telling people that have played a game for years and enjoy it greatly how their sequel should be after playing it for 6 weeks. Seems like it would keep me out of trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
