|
Yeah, adding things to noobify the game will greatly decrease the huge skill gap between pros and noobs. Look at tennis, for example. In the 70's, we used to play with tiny little wooden racquets on courts where the ball's bounce sometimes defied logic because the grass was uneven. I was just an average public court player back then because the small wooden head of the racquet was just too hard for me to consistently hit the ball with. I was, according to you guys' language, a tennis noob.
Then in the 80s, they noobified the game by coming out with larger racquets made of graphite instead of wood. Since the racquets were larger, and much more powerful, suddenly the skill gap between players fell like a rock. Player tennis with small wooden racquets was like playing Starcraft, while playing with the more noob-friendly, graphite, larger racquets was like playing with auto-mining and MBS. These larger, more powerful racquets removed the coordination aspect of the game and because of the smaller skill gap between players, I was able to take my tennis game to the next level, defeating much more skilled players(who were also using big, more powerful racquets, what do you know) and successfully winning the Wimbledon and the US Open championships, even though I was a noob. The new, easier racquets(interface) noobified the game and as a result competitive tennis died the year I won Wimbledon!
So the moral of the story is, the more difficult the game is, the more skill it takes and the more it rewards high skill. Maybe Blizzard should consider making it take 2 or even 3 clicks per action, and make it so that workers literally don't auto-mine, and you have to tell them to return to the main building after picking up minerals, then tell them to mine again, repeat.
|
I think someone registered like 20 accounts and voted "good" because it completely reversed in a few hours.
|
On September 10 2007 07:29 Aphelion wrote:
Orangedude: I like seeing imperfection even in the top ranks of progaming, and even more I like to see progamers taking advantage of that fact. Imperfection allows for improvement, it allows for a human element of distraction, psychological frustration, it allows for style. Perfection has no style, it is bland and conformist.
There is a distinction between imperfection and just plain carelessness imo. The first is a fact because everyone is human, and will be there regardless of MBS or not. I don't think the second one (like having idle workers, or suiciding your troops for no good reason) is necessary for style.
On September 10 2007 07:29 Aphelion wrote:
Nalra and Boxer are exciting precisely because they sacrifice macro, they take risks, and sacrifice solid play. Without that factor, everyone would be Nal_ra and Boxer, and there would be nothing special about what they do. I don't want every game to be a wanna-be pimpest play. Again, stuff like Pimpest Plays, micro feats , they are only impressive IN CONTEXT of the solid macro mechanics and overall subtext which goes on around them.
You are assuming here that the feats of Nal_rA and BoxeR of current are the absolute limit. I think you are underestimating their potential. Intense competition will keep pushing each of them ever higher and higher. I believe we'll be even more impressed than before.
Also, picture this.
Korean gamer A: A BoxeR wannabe is inspired by his idol and adopts a creative play style with daring moves, etc. He sacrifices a bit of macro in order to achieve his flashy moves. As a result of SC being a macro-oriented game, he keeps losing to less flashy but consistent players with more perfected technique. Korean gamer A never breaks into the pro-gaming scene.
Korean gamer B: An iloveoov wannabe is impressed by Gorilla's macro and spends most of his time training his macro and technique in order to compete with other players. As a result of SC being a macro-oriented game, he keeps winning against flashier but less consistent players due to his more perfected technique. Korean gamer B becomes the next macro monster and achieves stardom.
Which of the two above would you rather be watching?
On September 10 2007 07:29 Aphelion wrote:
Furthermore, pros don't win "because" their opponent played sloppily. They exert incredible pressure and force the game to a situation where their opponents, even with their super mechanics, breakdown. This imperfection actually allows for more comebacks though, because when people start playing too perfectly the slightest mistake becomes crippling. Every game would be like a ZvZ.
That incredible pressure is what makes certain pros who can't take it show their "sloppiness" (maybe not the best word, but same idea - a breakdown). Would you rather see a player win because their opponent "broke down" due to pressure or because one player outplayed the other with superior play?
ZvZ is not the way it is because of "perfection". It's because the strategical side to that matchup is not well balanced. Mutaling has no viable counter because many complex reasons. I don't think upping the skill level of all players will cause a similar situation.
On September 10 2007 07:29 Aphelion wrote:
People keep bringing up "pimpest plays", "strategy" and "warp gate multi-directional micro" to somehow browbeat the anti-MBS side. Unique strategy and "pimpest plays" cannot be common in a balanced game which allows mass gaming. In fact, I've thought a long time about it, and for a long-term, balanced game, there will be increasingly less situations which allow for the above. Its a sign of a solid game. It doesn't mean that it is boring. It just means that all scenarios have been very much explored and understood, and that there's a reason for action one takes, even if they seem rote and memorized. Noobs don't understand that. They see pros do similar BOs every game and assume its mindless and non-strategic. They cry out that "SC needs more strategy". They could not be more wrong. There are reasons for every small move when a game has evolved to that level. A balanced game which does not rely on luck eventually will settle to such a steady state.
Yes, this is similar to any game in the world including sports. Eventually somewhat of a standard will be reached. But the most important part is whether or not the game has enough strategical depth to keep evolving. This is where SC is superior to all other RTS so far. I trust Blizzard can do this again, but this is out of our hands.
|
On September 10 2007 07:41 iamke55 wrote:
Yeah, adding things to noobify the game will greatly decrease the huge skill gap between pros and noobs. Look at tennis, for example. In the 70's, we used to play with tiny little wooden racquets on courts where the ball's bounce sometimes defied logic because the grass was uneven. I was just an average public court player back then because the small wooden head of the racquet was just too hard for me to consistently hit the ball with. I was, according to you guys' language, a tennis noob.
Then in the 80s, they noobified the game by coming out with larger racquets made of graphite instead of wood. Since the racquets were larger, and much more powerful, suddenly the skill gap between players fell like a rock. Player tennis with small wooden racquets was like playing Starcraft, while playing with the more noob-friendly, graphite, larger racquets was like playing with auto-mining and MBS. These larger, more powerful racquets removed the coordination aspect of the game and because of the smaller skill gap between players, I was able to take my tennis game to the next level, defeating much more skilled players(who were also using big, more powerful racquets, what do you know) and successfully winning the Wimbledon and the US Open championships, even though I was a noob. The new, easier racquets(interface) noobified the game and as a result competitive tennis died the year I won Wimbledon!
So the moral of the story is, the more difficult the game is, the more skill it takes and the more it rewards high skill. Maybe Blizzard should consider making it take 2 or even 3 clicks per action, and make it so that workers literally don't auto-mine, and you have to tell them to return to the main building after picking up minerals, then tell them to mine again, repeat.
Actually it's about having the ideal balance between macro and micro, and the right amount of actions to be good. StarCraft achieved this closer than any other game ever did, and now you want to make StarCraft2 more like a bunch of other RTS games that failed miserably in that respect. It makes no sense.
Unfortunately, you can't argue the actual points we make (because we are right), so you have to straw man. Look it up. And your analogy was fucking awful to top it off. Improved racquets actually allows for a better skill gap because it REDUCES the randomness (luck factor) in the game. Eliminating most of macro INCREASES the randomness (luck factor) in Starcraft, and kills the skill gap. So your point actually helped my side.
|
On September 10 2007 07:41 iamke55 wrote:
Yeah, adding things to noobify the game will greatly decrease the huge skill gap between pros and noobs. Look at tennis, for example. In the 70's, we used to play with tiny little wooden racquets on courts where the ball's bounce sometimes defied logic because the grass was uneven. I was just an average public court player back then because the small wooden head of the racquet was just too hard for me to consistently hit the ball with. I was, according to you guys' language, a tennis noob.
Then in the 80s, they noobified the game by coming out with larger racquets made of graphite instead of wood. Since the racquets were larger, and much more powerful, suddenly the skill gap between players fell like a rock. Player tennis with small wooden racquets was like playing Starcraft, while playing with the more noob-friendly, graphite, larger racquets was like playing with auto-mining and MBS. These larger, more powerful racquets removed the coordination aspect of the game and because of the smaller skill gap between players, I was able to take my tennis game to the next level, defeating much more skilled players(who were also using big, more powerful racquets, what do you know) and successfully winning the Wimbledon and the US Open championships, even though I was a noob. The new, easier racquets(interface) noobified the game and as a result competitive tennis died the year I won Wimbledon!
So the moral of the story is, the more difficult the game is, the more skill it takes and the more it rewards high skill. Maybe Blizzard should consider making it take 2 or even 3 clicks per action, and make it so that workers literally don't auto-mine, and you have to tell them to return to the main building after picking up minerals, then tell them to mine again, repeat.
I suppose you are trying to use sarcasm to support MBS. But you utterly failed.
I got a new lighter, faster optical mouse and I won OSL lawl.
|
On September 10 2007 08:01 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 07:29 Aphelion wrote:
Orangedude: I like seeing imperfection even in the top ranks of progaming, and even more I like to see progamers taking advantage of that fact. Imperfection allows for improvement, it allows for a human element of distraction, psychological frustration, it allows for style. Perfection has no style, it is bland and conformist.
There is a distinction between imperfection and just plain carelessness imo. The first is a fact because everyone is human, and will be there regardless of MBS or not. I don't think the second one (like having idle workers, or suiciding your troops for no good reason) is necessary for style.
I think his point was that due to macro and micro taking the same amount of time and thus forcing the player to choose between one or the other it forces mistakes and opens opportunities for the player who made the correct decision to capitalize.
Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 07:29 Aphelion wrote:
Nalra and Boxer are exciting precisely because they sacrifice macro, they take risks, and sacrifice solid play. Without that factor, everyone would be Nal_ra and Boxer, and there would be nothing special about what they do. I don't want every game to be a wanna-be pimpest play. Again, stuff like Pimpest Plays, micro feats , they are only impressive IN CONTEXT of the solid macro mechanics and overall subtext which goes on around them.
You are assuming here that the feats of Nal_rA and BoxeR of current are the absolute limit. I think you are underestimating their potential. Intense competition will keep pushing each of them ever higher and higher. I believe we'll be even more impressed than before.
Like I said, there is only so far micro can go, they are more known for their unorthodox build orders and strategy anyway(maybe not boxer) and I don't see how making macro easier will affect the way they come up with unothodox build orders..
Also, picture this.
Korean gamer A: A BoxeR wannabe is inspired by his idol and adopts a creative play style with daring moves, etc. He sacrifices a bit of macro in order to achieve his flashy moves. As a result of SC being a macro-oriented game, he keeps losing to less flashy but consistent players with more perfected technique. Korean gamer A never breaks into the pro-gaming scene.
Korean gamer B: An iloveoov wannabe is impressed by Gorilla's micro and spends most of his time training his macro and technique in order to compete with other players. As a result of SC being a macro-oriented game, he keeps winning against flashier but less consistent players due to his more perfected technique. Korean gamer B becomes the next macro monster and achieves stardom.
Which of the two above would you rather be watching?
We want to see both, we want to see different styles of play, passive and aggressive, orthodox and unorthodox, micro-based and macro-based. Balance between time spent on micro and macro provide opportunities for both to shine. Besides, it's not like oov couldn't micro, it's just his macro was so impressive.
Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 07:29 Aphelion wrote:
Furthermore, pros don't win "because" their opponent played sloppily. They exert incredible pressure and force the game to a situation where their opponents, even with their super mechanics, breakdown. This imperfection actually allows for more comebacks though, because when people start playing too perfectly the slightest mistake becomes crippling. Every game would be like a ZvZ.
That incredible pressure is what makes certain pros who can't take it show their "sloppiness" (maybe not the best word, but same idea - a breakdown). Would you rather see a player win because their opponent "broke down" due to pressure or because one player outplayed the other with superior play? ZvZ is not the way it is because of "perfection". It's because the strategical side to that matchup is not well balanced. Mutaling has no viable counter because many complex reasons. I don't think upping the skill level of all players will cause a similar situation.
The reason they breakdown is because they are outplayed and overwhelmed, then their mistakes just start piling on top of each other which makes it seem like they are sloppy. Take savior vs nada OSL for example, savior made nada look like he was completely falling apart. What you're implying is that nada lost, not that savior won, which is absurd.
Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 07:29 Aphelion wrote:
People keep bringing up "pimpest plays", "strategy" and "warp gate multi-directional micro" to somehow browbeat the anti-MBS side. Unique strategy and "pimpest plays" cannot be common in a balanced game which allows mass gaming. In fact, I've thought a long time about it, and for a long-term, balanced game, there will be increasingly less situations which allow for the above. Its a sign of a solid game. It doesn't mean that it is boring. It just means that all scenarios have been very much explored and understood, and that there's a reason for action one takes, even if they seem rote and memorized. Noobs don't understand that. They see pros do similar BOs every game and assume its mindless and non-strategic. They cry out that "SC needs more strategy". They could not be more wrong. There are reasons for every small move when a game has evolved to that level. A balanced game which does not rely on luck eventually will settle to such a steady state.
Yes, this is similar to any game in the world including sports. Eventually somewhat of a standard will be reached. But the most important part is whether or not the game has enough strategical depth to keep evolving. This is where SC is superior to all other RTS so far. I trust Blizzard can do this again, but this is out of our hands.
Hmm, I think he's saying that people are saying that if we allow MBS we'll see pimp plays all the time which probably won't be true. That regardless, the game will settle just as it has in SC for the most part and people shouldn't use this fact to say MBS will increase innovation.
|
On September 10 2007 08:01 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 07:29 Aphelion wrote:
Orangedude: I like seeing imperfection even in the top ranks of progaming, and even more I like to see progamers taking advantage of that fact. Imperfection allows for improvement, it allows for a human element of distraction, psychological frustration, it allows for style. Perfection has no style, it is bland and conformist.
There is a distinction between imperfection and just plain carelessness imo. The first is a fact because everyone is human, and will be there regardless of MBS or not. I don't think the second one (like having idle workers, or suiciding your troops for no good reason) is necessary for style.
Your rephrasing things doesn't make it different. Carelessness, inability to attend to everything, is one of the biggest parts of imperfection in SC play. And it is necessary for style because it limits what you can do and forces a choice. Look at Pusan's spirit style. I remember him vs FBH on 815 a year or so ago, where he pumps out hordes and even lets arbiters die from 1v1ing turrets because he was so focused on macroing. With MBS, he surely could have spared a few clicks to run that arbiter away. But is it entertaining to see their basic personalities reflected in almost every move they make? Hell yes.
On September 10 2007 08:01 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 07:29 Aphelion wrote:
Nalra and Boxer are exciting precisely because they sacrifice macro, they take risks, and sacrifice solid play. Without that factor, everyone would be Nal_ra and Boxer, and there would be nothing special about what they do. I don't want every game to be a wanna-be pimpest play. Again, stuff like Pimpest Plays, micro feats , they are only impressive IN CONTEXT of the solid macro mechanics and overall subtext which goes on around them.
You are assuming here that the feats of Nal_rA and BoxeR of current are the absolute limit. I think you are underestimating their potential. Intense competition will keep pushing each of them ever higher and higher. I believe we'll be even more impressed than before.
Again, you use vague words which conveys zero concrete information. Nal_ra and Boxer are not the limit – they are fun to watch because of their imperfections and what they sacrifice for the flash of glory. You know what they do takes balls and courage. Plus, what they do also DEPENDS on there being a standard form of play, which they try to exploit to their advantage. If you know anything about progaming, you'd also know they're not at the very top now – especially Boxer. Newer pros have passed them by. We just remember them from their style and out of nostalgia.
On September 10 2007 08:01 orangedude wrote:
Also, picture this.
Korean gamer A: A BoxeR wannabe is inspired by his idol and adopts a creative play style with daring moves, etc. He sacrifices a bit of macro in order to achieve his flashy moves. As a result of SC being a macro-oriented game, he keeps losing to less flashy but consistent players with more perfected technique. Korean gamer A never breaks into the pro-gaming scene.
Korean gamer B: An iloveoov wannabe is impressed by Gorilla's micro and spends most of his time training his macro and technique in order to compete with other players. As a result of SC being a macro-oriented game, he keeps winning against flashier but less consistent players due to his more perfected technique. Korean gamer B becomes the next macro monster and achieves stardom.
Which of the two above would you rather be watching?
A completely rigged discussion which betrays your lack of knowledge of the progaming scene. Do you even know any names beyond the obvious ones of Boxer, Ra, Oov? You cannot just “adopt a creative play style”. Even the Boxer's and Casys of the world need very very solid standard games to break it to the top. Don't be blinded by the pimpest plays and not acknowledge the solid senses of timing, pinpoint intuition, and solid mechanics which are required to pull of what they need. And players like Oov are not just “macro and technique trainers” He too needs incredible defensive micro, nuanced and subtle gauges of exactly the minmum amount of defense he needs to maximize the amount he spends on economy. And even the most solid players have to cheese and be unpredictable to prevent the opponents from taking advantage of them. The Oovs and Nadas of the world are just as important as the Boxers. Boxer is the hero, the flashy one, Oov and Nada are the once who perfected Terran mechanics and set a standard of play for everyone to emulate. A league full of cheesers and those determined to be “flashy” will soon be incredibly boring. A mix is needed.
On September 10 2007 08:01 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 07:29 Aphelion wrote:
Furthermore, pros don't win "because" their opponent played sloppily. They exert incredible pressure and force the game to a situation where their opponents, even with their super mechanics, breakdown. This imperfection actually allows for more comebacks though, because when people start playing too perfectly the slightest mistake becomes crippling. Every game would be like a ZvZ.
That incredible pressure is what makes certain pros who can't take it show their "sloppiness" (maybe not the best word, but same idea - a breakdown). Would you rather see a player win because their opponent "broke down" due to pressure or because one player outplayed the other with superior play?
Moot point. Its the same thing. Superior play needs to opponent breakdowns.
On September 10 2007 08:01 orangedude wrote:
ZvZ is not the way it is because of "perfection". It's because the strategical side to that matchup is not well balanced. Mutaling has no viable counter because many complex reasons. I don't think upping the skill level of all players will cause a similar situation.
The point is the same. ZvZ is very punishing for mistakes and has little room for comeback. Reducing the amount of inherent perfection in SC2 would do the same thing and make the occasional mistake cripping.
On September 10 2007 08:01 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 07:29 Aphelion wrote:
People keep bringing up "pimpest plays", "strategy" and "warp gate multi-directional micro" to somehow browbeat the anti-MBS side. Unique strategy and "pimpest plays" cannot be common in a balanced game which allows mass gaming. In fact, I've thought a long time about it, and for a long-term, balanced game, there will be increasingly less situations which allow for the above. Its a sign of a solid game. It doesn't mean that it is boring. It just means that all scenarios have been very much explored and understood, and that there's a reason for action one takes, even if they seem rote and memorized. Noobs don't understand that. They see pros do similar BOs every game and assume its mindless and non-strategic. They cry out that "SC needs more strategy". They could not be more wrong. There are reasons for every small move when a game has evolved to that level. A balanced game which does not rely on luck eventually will settle to such a steady state.
Yes, this is similar to any game in the world including sports. Eventually somewhat of a standard will be reached. But the most important part is whether or not the game has enough strategical depth to keep evolving. This is where SC is superior to all other RTS so far. I trust Blizzard can do this again, but this is out of our hands.
Once the broad outlines of strategy have been established, the continual improvements will be much more subtle and not easily appreciable by the casual observer. Yet they remain just as important and impressive.
|
On September 10 2007 08:23 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 08:01 orangedude wrote:On September 10 2007 07:29 Aphelion wrote:
Orangedude: I like seeing imperfection even in the top ranks of progaming, and even more I like to see progamers taking advantage of that fact. Imperfection allows for improvement, it allows for a human element of distraction, psychological frustration, it allows for style. Perfection has no style, it is bland and conformist.
There is a distinction between imperfection and just plain carelessness imo. The first is a fact because everyone is human, and will be there regardless of MBS or not. I don't think the second one (like having idle workers, or suiciding your troops for no good reason) is necessary for style. I think his point was that due to macro and micro taking the same amount of time and thus forcing the player to choose between one or the other it forces mistakes and opens opportunities for the player who made the correct decision to capitalize.
I understand his point, but this will still be true even if MBS is in imo. Like I pointed out earlier:
It only takes progamers 1 second to cycle through their buildings and build all their units. They only need to do this once every 40 seconds for say a dragoon. It only costs half a second to rally a worker and get back to where they were before. Neither of you have commented on this point yet.
On September 10 2007 08:23 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 07:29 Aphelion wrote:
Nalra and Boxer are exciting precisely because they sacrifice macro, they take risks, and sacrifice solid play. Without that factor, everyone would be Nal_ra and Boxer, and there would be nothing special about what they do. I don't want every game to be a wanna-be pimpest play. Again, stuff like Pimpest Plays, micro feats , they are only impressive IN CONTEXT of the solid macro mechanics and overall subtext which goes on around them.
You are assuming here that the feats of Nal_rA and BoxeR of current are the absolute limit. I think you are underestimating their potential. Intense competition will keep pushing each of them ever higher and higher. I believe we'll be even more impressed than before. Like I said, there is only so far micro can go, they are more known for their unorthodox build orders and strategy anyway(maybe not boxer) and I don't see how making macro easier will affect the way they come up with unothodox build orders..
I am saying that people like them can afford to spend less time training purely on macro (if no new macro-actions are added). Thus, the most innovative players will become even more successful than they are now. Boxers would be encouraged to spend less of their practice time and more on creativity and playstyle.
On September 10 2007 08:23 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +Also, picture this.
Korean gamer A: A BoxeR wannabe is inspired by his idol and adopts a creative play style with daring moves, etc. He sacrifices a bit of macro in order to achieve his flashy moves. As a result of SC being a macro-oriented game, he keeps losing to less flashy but consistent players with more perfected technique. Korean gamer A never breaks into the pro-gaming scene.
Korean gamer B: An iloveoov wannabe is impressed by Gorilla's micro and spends most of his time training his macro and technique in order to compete with other players. As a result of SC being a macro-oriented game, he keeps winning against flashier but less consistent players due to his more perfected technique. Korean gamer B becomes the next macro monster and achieves stardom.
Which of the two above would you rather be watching? We want to see both, we want to see different styles of play, passive and aggressive, orthodox and unorthodox, micro-based and macro-based. Balance between time spent on micro and macro provide opportunities for both to shine. Besides, it's not like oov couldn't micro, it's just his macro was so impressive.
I am saying that that gamer A is at a huge disadvantage if macro-oriented play is placed too highly, and thus they will get selected out (think of evolution and natural selection). Therefore, all new players will be far more likely to be type B. You can see how BoxeR and Nal_rA are no longer winning any pro-leagues or tournaments in the past few years. You would not see as many different types of play if other styles are not rewarded.
On September 10 2007 08:23 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 07:29 Aphelion wrote:
Furthermore, pros don't win "because" their opponent played sloppily. They exert incredible pressure and force the game to a situation where their opponents, even with their super mechanics, breakdown. This imperfection actually allows for more comebacks though, because when people start playing too perfectly the slightest mistake becomes crippling. Every game would be like a ZvZ.
That incredible pressure is what makes certain pros who can't take it show their "sloppiness" (maybe not the best word, but same idea - a breakdown). Would you rather see a player win because their opponent "broke down" due to pressure or because one player outplayed the other with superior play? ZvZ is not the way it is because of "perfection". It's because the strategical side to that matchup is not well balanced. Mutaling has no viable counter because many complex reasons. I don't think upping the skill level of all players will cause a similar situation. The reason they breakdown is because they are outplayed and overwhelmed, then their mistakes just start piling on top of each other which makes it seem like they are sloppy. Take savior vs nada OSL for example, savior made nada look like he was completely falling apart. What you're implying is that nada lost, not that savior won, which is absurd.
You just admitted it yourself. Nada was falling apart in a few of the games. It's a combination of both.
I would rather see Savior win when BOTH players are playing at the top of their game.
On September 10 2007 08:23 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 07:29 Aphelion wrote:
People keep bringing up "pimpest plays", "strategy" and "warp gate multi-directional micro" to somehow browbeat the anti-MBS side. Unique strategy and "pimpest plays" cannot be common in a balanced game which allows mass gaming. In fact, I've thought a long time about it, and for a long-term, balanced game, there will be increasingly less situations which allow for the above. Its a sign of a solid game. It doesn't mean that it is boring. It just means that all scenarios have been very much explored and understood, and that there's a reason for action one takes, even if they seem rote and memorized. Noobs don't understand that. They see pros do similar BOs every game and assume its mindless and non-strategic. They cry out that "SC needs more strategy". They could not be more wrong. There are reasons for every small move when a game has evolved to that level. A balanced game which does not rely on luck eventually will settle to such a steady state.
Yes, this is similar to any game in the world including sports. Eventually somewhat of a standard will be reached. But the most important part is whether or not the game has enough strategical depth to keep evolving. This is where SC is superior to all other RTS so far. I trust Blizzard can do this again, but this is out of our hands. Hmm, I think he's saying that people are saying that if we allow MBS we'll see pimp plays all the time which probably won't be true. That regardless, the game will settle just as it has in SC for the most part and people shouldn't use this fact to say MBS will increase innovation.
Yes, I agreed with this and I know what he was saying.
|
On September 10 2007 08:45 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 08:23 mahnini wrote:On September 10 2007 08:01 orangedude wrote:On September 10 2007 07:29 Aphelion wrote:
Orangedude: I like seeing imperfection even in the top ranks of progaming, and even more I like to see progamers taking advantage of that fact. Imperfection allows for improvement, it allows for a human element of distraction, psychological frustration, it allows for style. Perfection has no style, it is bland and conformist.
There is a distinction between imperfection and just plain carelessness imo. The first is a fact because everyone is human, and will be there regardless of MBS or not. I don't think the second one (like having idle workers, or suiciding your troops for no good reason) is necessary for style. I think his point was that due to macro and micro taking the same amount of time and thus forcing the player to choose between one or the other it forces mistakes and opens opportunities for the player who made the correct decision to capitalize. I understand his point, but this will still be true even if MBS is in imo. Like I pointed out earlier: It only takes progamers 1 second to cycle through their buildings and build all their units. They only need to do this once every 40 seconds for say a dragoon. It only costs half a second to rally a worker and get back to where they were before. Neither of you have commented on this point yet.
BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO DO IT. Its not a matter of “just a few seconds”, its ability to keep that in your head, to remember to do it, to pull away from the battle for just a few critical seconds. “A few seconds” can mean your army being stormed to shit or your mm being surrounded by lurkling. That “few seconds” needs you not to be absorbed by the constant action and still remember the basics. Its the MENTAL part of it which makes it hard.
On September 10 2007 08:45 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 08:23 mahnini wrote:On September 10 2007 07:29 Aphelion wrote:
Nalra and Boxer are exciting precisely because they sacrifice macro, they take risks, and sacrifice solid play. Without that factor, everyone would be Nal_ra and Boxer, and there would be nothing special about what they do. I don't want every game to be a wanna-be pimpest play. Again, stuff like Pimpest Plays, micro feats , they are only impressive IN CONTEXT of the solid macro mechanics and overall subtext which goes on around them.
You are assuming here that the feats of Nal_rA and BoxeR of current are the absolute limit. I think you are underestimating their potential. Intense competition will keep pushing each of them ever higher and higher. I believe we'll be even more impressed than before. Like I said, there is only so far micro can go, they are more known for their unorthodox build orders and strategy anyway(maybe not boxer) and I don't see how making macro easier will affect the way they come up with unothodox build orders.. I am saying that people like them can afford to spend less time training purely on macro (if no new macro-actions are added). Thus, the most innovative players will become even more successful than they are now. Boxers would be encouraged to spend less of their practice time and more on creativity and playstyle.
Current SC has exactly the right balance. Every pro does gay little intelligent tricks throughout their game even in the most standard of games. Every pro eventually does some all-in cheese to put their opponent off guard. Anymore of that and the proscene will devolve to randomness and gayness with no skill at all.
On September 10 2007 08:45 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 08:23 mahnini wrote:Also, picture this.
Korean gamer A: A BoxeR wannabe is inspired by his idol and adopts a creative play style with daring moves, etc. He sacrifices a bit of macro in order to achieve his flashy moves. As a result of SC being a macro-oriented game, he keeps losing to less flashy but consistent players with more perfected technique. Korean gamer A never breaks into the pro-gaming scene.
Korean gamer B: An iloveoov wannabe is impressed by Gorilla's micro and spends most of his time training his macro and technique in order to compete with other players. As a result of SC being a macro-oriented game, he keeps winning against flashier but less consistent players due to his more perfected technique. Korean gamer B becomes the next macro monster and achieves stardom.
Which of the two above would you rather be watching? We want to see both, we want to see different styles of play, passive and aggressive, orthodox and unorthodox, micro-based and macro-based. Balance between time spent on micro and macro provide opportunities for both to shine. Besides, it's not like oov couldn't micro, it's just his macro was so impressive. I am saying that that gamer A is at a huge disadvantage if macro-oriented play is placed too highly, and thus they will get selected out (think of evolution and natural selection). Therefore, all new players will be far more likely to be type B. You can see how BoxeR and Nal_rA are no longer winning any pro-leagues or tournaments in the past few years. You would not see all different types of play if other styles does not work.
Micro styles definitely work, look at Casy, Free, Bisu, Stork. The new breed has over the old breed precisely incredibly daring micro and still solid macro. In fact right now I'd say they are getting ever more important. Even a lot of MACRO builds and strategies rely on you being able to say, defend vs mines w/ no obs, being able to micro zealot moving shots like Free. THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF MICRO IN PROGAMING SC. We DO see different types of play – even if you cannot recognize it as such. It just more subtle and refined.
On September 10 2007 08:45 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 08:23 mahnini wrote:On September 10 2007 07:29 Aphelion wrote:
Furthermore, pros don't win "because" their opponent played sloppily. They exert incredible pressure and force the game to a situation where their opponents, even with their super mechanics, breakdown. This imperfection actually allows for more comebacks though, because when people start playing too perfectly the slightest mistake becomes crippling. Every game would be like a ZvZ.
That incredible pressure is what makes certain pros who can't take it show their "sloppiness" (maybe not the best word, but same idea - a breakdown). Would you rather see a player win because their opponent "broke down" due to pressure or because one player outplayed the other with superior play? ZvZ is not the way it is because of "perfection". It's because the strategical side to that matchup is not well balanced. Mutaling has no viable counter because many complex reasons. I don't think upping the skill level of all players will cause a similar situation. The reason they breakdown is because they are outplayed and overwhelmed, then their mistakes just start piling on top of each other which makes it seem like they are sloppy. Take savior vs nada OSL for example, savior made nada look like he was completely falling apart. What you're implying is that nada lost, not that savior won, which is absurd. You just admitted it yourself. Nada was falling apart in a few of the games. It's a combination of both. I would rather see Savior win when BOTH players are playing at the TOP of their game.
Nada WAS ON TOP OF HIS GAME. Savior simply broke him down and raised the game to an intensity which he cannot match. Nada didn't spontaneously combust – SAVIOR MADE HIM DO IT.
On September 10 2007 08:45 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 08:23 mahnini wrote:On September 10 2007 07:29 Aphelion wrote:
People keep bringing up "pimpest plays", "strategy" and "warp gate multi-directional micro" to somehow browbeat the anti-MBS side. Unique strategy and "pimpest plays" cannot be common in a balanced game which allows mass gaming. In fact, I've thought a long time about it, and for a long-term, balanced game, there will be increasingly less situations which allow for the above. Its a sign of a solid game. It doesn't mean that it is boring. It just means that all scenarios have been very much explored and understood, and that there's a reason for action one takes, even if they seem rote and memorized. Noobs don't understand that. They see pros do similar BOs every game and assume its mindless and non-strategic. They cry out that "SC needs more strategy". They could not be more wrong. There are reasons for every small move when a game has evolved to that level. A balanced game which does not rely on luck eventually will settle to such a steady state.
Yes, this is similar to any game in the world including sports. Eventually somewhat of a standard will be reached. But the most important part is whether or not the game has enough strategical depth to keep evolving. This is where SC is superior to all other RTS so far. I trust Blizzard can do this again, but this is out of our hands. Hmm, I think he's saying that people are saying that if we allow MBS we'll see pimp plays all the time which probably won't be true. That regardless, the game will settle just as it has in SC for the most part and people shouldn't use this fact to say MBS will increase innovation. Yes, I agreed with this and I know what he was saying.
I sure hope so.
|
Ah, I see that the pro-archaic interface side has switched their stance from "it takes out skill and lets noobs beat pros" to "it distorts the perfect balance between micro and macro in Starcraft" after repeatedly losing arguments.
Yeah, the game is clearly balanced between micro and macro when the 3 players who have had the most major tournament wins all were macro players. The balance between macro and micro is perfectly split in a game where mindlessly pumping out goliaths from 10 factories is a better counter to carriers than using a combination of ghosts and goliaths, even though the ghost's lockdown was pretty much made to beat expensive units that cost lots of resources and the goliath is a generic anti-air unit. Micro clearly decides many games when the guy with the best dropship micro ever cannot win more than half of his games against Protoss in a macro-heavy matchup, while the guy with the most famous 10 factory mass macro still dominated against Zerg in the tradionally micro-heavy matchup.
I'm not saying I don't enjoy my macro advantage over Starcraft newbs who couldn't get to 200 supply if I played 1 base and turtled the whole game, or that I think MBS will even be extremely useful to in a game where pure tanks on a cliff get owned by pure immortals on lower ground, but it is a necessary step forward to modernize the game.
To me, MBS and selecting 24 units at once and auto-mining are things that will have little to no effect on the competitive scene while at the same time preserving Blizzard's dignity and massively improving its acceptance by review sites and the average player. Honestly, I don't think MBS and 24 or unlimited select are even gonna be used much at the pro level because massing one unit won't work at all and unlimited select will give you some funny-looking worker lines when maynarding.
|
On September 10 2007 08:56 iamke55 wrote:
Ah, I see that the pro-archaic interface side has switched their stance from "it takes out skill and lets noobs beat pros" to "it distorts the perfect balance between micro and macro in Starcraft" after repeatedly losing arguments.
Obviously everyone already realized this from the start.
|
OK ok, I was not trying to be overly critical of the current SC. Some of my points were hypothetical, such as, the gamer A vs B part. I never said it was true, but was more of pointing out the concept, which is perfectly valid.
|
On September 10 2007 08:56 iamke55 wrote:
Ah, I see that the pro-archaic interface side has switched their stance from "it takes out skill and lets noobs beat pros" to "it distorts the perfect balance between micro and macro in Starcraft" after repeatedly losing arguments.
Stop attacking a strawman argument. No one said that MBS lets pros beat noobs. It just narrows the skill gap. And the two arguments are not mutually exclusive anyways. They are both true.
On September 10 2007 08:56 iamke55 wrote:
Yeah, the game is clearly balanced between micro and macro when the 3 players who have had the most major tournament wins all were macro players. The balance between macro and micro is perfectly split in a game where mindlessly pumping out goliaths from 10 factories is a better counter to carriers than using a combination of ghosts and goliaths, even though the ghost's lockdown was pretty much made to beat expensive units that cost lots of resources and the goliath is a generic anti-air unit. Micro clearly decides many games when the guy with the best dropship micro ever cannot win more than half of his games against Protoss in a macro-heavy matchup, while the guy with the most famous 10 factory mass macro still dominated against Zerg in the tradionally micro-heavy matchup.
Lets see, Oov, Nada, Savior? Nada and Savior both have incredible control. In fact, Savior's macro game ZvT is RELIANT on godly defiler usage, and Nada's mass vessel control is second to none. Oov won his 2nd OSL vs July on the strength of his incredibly defense 1 rax vs 3 hatchling which broke his ramp.
Using a broken and inefficient unit like the ghost does nothing to advance your cost, and in very long TvP games vs carriers they have been seen. And I sure hope that a player with as bad a standard TvP cannot just win with "dship micro". Are you saying a proper push / push break doesn't take micro. Give me a break.
And Oov's micro is nothing to sneeze at. Lack of flashiness doesn't preclude skill.
On September 10 2007 08:56 iamke55 wrote:
I'm not saying I don't enjoy my macro advantage over Starcraft newbs who couldn't get to 200 supply if I played 1 base and turtled the whole game, or that I think MBS will even be extremely useful to in a game where pure tanks on a cliff get owned by pure immortals on lower ground, but it is a necessary step forward to modernize the game.
To me, MBS and selecting 24 units at once and auto-mining are things that will have little to no effect on the competitive scene while at the same time preserving Blizzard's dignity and massively improving its acceptance by review sites and the average player. Honestly, I don't think MBS and 24 or unlimited select are even gonna be used much at the pro level because massing one unit won't work at all and unlimited select will give you some funny-looking worker lines when maynarding.
|
On September 10 2007 08:56 iamke55 wrote:
Ah, I see that the pro-archaic interface side has switched their stance from "it takes out skill and lets noobs beat pros" to "it distorts the perfect balance between micro and macro in Starcraft" after repeatedly losing arguments.
Wtf? The stance was never that it lets "noobs beat pros" it was that the skill gap would decrease by a notable margin. How can you even deny this?
|
On September 10 2007 08:55 Aphelion wrote:
Nada WAS ON TOP OF HIS GAME. Savior simply broke him down and raised the game to an intensity which he cannot match. Nada didn't spontaneously combust – SAVIOR MADE HIM DO IT.
How did Savior break Nada down? Did he physically go over to his side and punch him? Did he insult his mother before the games? Did he bad manner him during his game?
Nada is the one who succumbed to pressure (although he has a very good record of maintaining control even under a lot of stress), and made several huge mistakes.
And also, you have changed some your argument to "I don't know the game well enough" to invalidate my points. That doesn't help you at all, when some of them were hypothetical from the start.
|
On September 10 2007 09:00 orangedude wrote:
OK ok, I was not trying to be overly critical of the current SC. Some of my points were hypothetical, such as, the gamer A vs B part. I never said it was true, but was more of pointing out the concept, which is perfectly valid.
Its an incredibly simplistic comparison with loaded language which takes into no account crucial subtleties.
|
im with u buddy, macro is boring 
|
On September 10 2007 09:08 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 08:55 Aphelion wrote:
Nada WAS ON TOP OF HIS GAME. Savior simply broke him down and raised the game to an intensity which he cannot match. Nada didn't spontaneously combust – SAVIOR MADE HIM DO IT.
How did Savior break Nada down? Did he physically go over to his side and punch him? Did he insult his mother before the games? Did he bad manner him during his game? Nada is the one who succumbed to pressure (although he has a very good record of maintaining control even under a lot of stress), and made several huge mistakes. And also, you have changed some your argument to "I don't know the game well enough" to invalidate my points. That doesn't help you at all, when some of them were hypothetical from the start.
Savior likes to do things like ling sneak when another player is clearly microing his army intensely, use attacks which are less APM intensive but which are much harder to defend, or the famous case of him allegedly killing Nada's comsat so Nada' couldn't scan at a critical moment. All these are instances of breaking down your opponent. And its not just at that high level either, even normal games on bnet you can say, use a very apm-intensive strat for both players because you know you have better multi-tasking. Even pre-progaming times, I think Zileas or Tsunami or one of those old school players said that time was the third resource in SC.
|
On September 10 2007 09:10 wXs.Havok wrote:im with u buddy, macro is boring
I hate this fucking subforum so much.
|
On September 10 2007 08:55 Aphelion wrote:
Its the MENTAL part of it which makes it hard.
They still have to do it, even with MBS implemented. Like you say, the MENTAL part is what makes it hard. Next, add in stuff like warpgates to occupy some of that apm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
