I thought I might write a little bit about the "noob friendly" interface of StarCraft 2 (rallying workers to minerals, unlimited selection of units, selecting more than one building and casting spells while having several casters selected etc.) because a lot of you think that this is, for some reason, a bad idea. But I strongly believe that an improved interface is not a bad thing.
I personally think StarCraft is a great game. But I do not really like playing it because of the interface. So what do I not like about it? Among other things: it's just frustrating not being able to do what one wants. I appreciate the need for a lot of things that "takes skill". The more things that can separate the good players from the bad the better; but not always.
If the things that separate the good players from the bad are things that are boring, then it's not helping the game. For example: Chess is (probably; since I'm not good at it I can not really tell) a pretty good game. But one could add additional elements to the game that makes it take more skill. Imagine that in Chess, after every move you make, you have to juggle five balls in the air for ten seconds (thanks Sirlin), otherwise your move doesn't count. That would make the game "harder" and "take more skill". But is it something that would be good? It most certainly would not. Why? Because first of all juggling is not as fun as playing a strategy game (of course some may argue with that, but I think most of you agree, more on that later). And second the juggling part of this new Chess is out of place; players who want to play Chess do most likely not want to have to juggle the balls. So, even if something makes the game "take more skill" it is not always a good thing.
This is the essence of making a better interface in SC2. The macro part of SC:BW is not really fun. Just clicking a lot of buildings (because you can not select many) etc. and "fighting the interface" is like juggling in the above example. It takes skill, but it's a boring skill. So, why is it boring? There is really no interaction with the opponent. You just have to do it. Micro and strategy, on the other hand, depends on what your opponent is doing. Every battle is like a mini strategy game. You have to get inside the mind of your opponent, and counter his moves. This kind of thing is much more fun than just clicking your buildings.
Of course when I say that it is more fun, I'm just expressing my own opinion. But I think most of you actually agree with me on this. Otherwise, you would not be playing SC in the first place. SC is a game of strategy. You have to get into the mind of the opponent, and come up with counters to what he is doing right now. There is no best strategy all the time. The fact that you like SC shows that you like this kind of strategy and mind games more than juggling. There are all kinds of games that focus on dexterity that you could play instead, but you chose SC.
One of the most popular arguments against an improved interface is that it makes the game require less skill. And that the gap between pro gamers and others will narrow. I'm not convinced by this argument, because there will always be things that the player can do instead of fighting the interface. For example micro even better, attack on multiple fronts etc. No one has ever played a perfect game of SC, and no one will ever play a perfect game of SC2. There will always be lots of things that could be done even better.
There are some other arguments against the noob friendly interface. And I'm going to respond to some of them now.
1. "If a BW game goes long enough, even the pros known for their perfect mechanics have to make decisions with regard to BW's third resource: time. The top players have to decide how much time to spend with each pressing issue, knowing that the issues ignored will suffer. A computer game shouldn't be built such that if you know what to do, you can automatically do it. That's a board game. For example, in Chess, or Risk, it does not take any skill to move a piece. Simplifying a computer game's interface to the point that the action on screen is just an extension of your thoughts is a big mistake. How much of your decisions actually come through on-screen should be mitigated by hand speed."
The first part of this argument is valid. The skill of prioritizing is real. I can even agree on that there is a little bit of a mind game and strategy involved. But I don't think that it makes up for the boring part after you have decided that you must focus on macro: fighting the interface. And this prioritizing skill is not lost if the game has a better interface. Players will still have to make decisions about what to focus on. For example if fighting multiple battles or even one non-trivial battle.
The second part of the argument is not really an argument at all. It's just an opinion. But nevertheless, I'm somewhat against it. Why shouldn't computer games try to eliminate the dexterity required? I think it would be wonderful, for the reasons stated above. And why should there be some arbitrary difference between board games and computer games? It's true that the actual moving of the pieces in Risk or Chess doesn't take much skill, but the thought behind the moves does. If you think that Chess is somehow too simple then try to beat a grand master.
Another thing about board games: Not many people play board games. Most people think that they are boring. But it's not for this reason (no dexterity required). I believe the reason why many people think they are boring is because they simply are less intense, not being real-time games, among other reasons. The gameplay of Risk, for example, is not that good in the first place.
2. "All games require decision-making but sports also require physical fitness, computer games require hand dexterity, and board games require nothing in addition at all. A tennis player can decide to hit the ball into the far corner, but he can still fail if his body is not capable of such strength and accuracy. It would be silliness to alter the game of tennis in some way such that players are not limited by their physical capabilities. Tennis fans know that the strategical requirements and the physical requirements of the game are already well-balanced."
This is all true. It would be pretty silly to somehow remove the physical skill in Tennis. But it's Tennis, not StarCraft. If the physical skill is removed from Tennis not a whole lot would be left. If dexterity, in some way, was removed from StarCraft on the other hand, the things left that require skill are still abundant.
3. "Other RTS's have been going that [noob friendly] direction and their games hold interest for less than a year."
I don't know what games you are talking about. But it's not the noob friendliness that makes them bad, it's the balance and gameplay.
4. "Massive groups of unlimited or even over 20 units is a pretty bad idea. It takes away from a lot of micro aspects."
This argument is true in a way. But micro is really about two things. Dexterity and knowing what to do. And as you probably guessed by now, I'm not a big fan of dexterity. But nevertheless, SC2, with the interface improvements, will still require dexterity. And players will not be able to micro properly with all of their units in one big group anyway.
5. "From personal talks with many of the best Warcraft 3 players they complain that many of their players can take a year off, not practice, come back and get 1st or 2nd in a prestigious tournament.
Even if that really is the case, I don't see anything wrong with it. If the player is really good and can pull it off, then he deserves to win. It's still a game of skill and there is nothing to complain about. Unless of course they can win because of imbalance or something like that. But that's something else.
6. "Starcraft 2 is making it easier to decrease skill gaps between players. Which is a bad thing. Because you do not respect the players as much, there is less to do, and the game becomes much less intense, thus less fun."
As discussed above, I think there will always be plenty of things to do. Just less boring things.
7. "All professional gamers I have talked to agree that you shouldn't be able to take months off practice then win a prestigious tournament with all the best players nor place 2nd in it. With the simplifying of SC into SC2, thus far it feels like this is what they are doing."
If I were a pro gamer, I would not have any problem with someone taking months off and then still win. If I were the one beaten it would be a little embarrassing. But I don't think this will be a real issue in SC2 because, as I have said earlier, it will still require dexterity etc.
What I would find frustrating though is if I would be forced to take a few months off and lose much of my skill (happens even if one is not a pro). That is a bigger problem in my opinion.
8. "RTS should have a mix of many characteristics. If someone's going to bullshit and say it should be all about strategy, and lower skilled people should be able to keep up and nearly be able to macro like Reach by pressing 4z on 10 gateways... then they might as well make it a turn based game."
It's not just the fingers that have a hard time performing. The mind is also pressed for time. And again, SC2 is going to require dexterity.
9. "Games should be difficult and take skill. It should take speed, strategy, timing, economy management, game control, etc... and many other factors that make the game great and intense. SC2 still takes skill, but it's not nearly as difficult or intense as playing SC. Thus, comes off as less fun in general."
If it truly is less intense and less difficult for the fingers, I would be very happy. But I don't believe it until I see it for myself.
10. "As has been said by testie and nony, the execution difficulty is vital for the game to be fun to watch and have great potential for skill. Making the UI so forgiving for new players removes this execution difficulty. Imagine if you had the same shooting skill in golf as Tiger Woods, and all you had to do was know what club to select."
Golf is not StarCraft. (This might be the worst argument I've heard so far.)
11. "Blizzard tried to make skill difference show in micro with warcraft3 - they noobified the macro/base management process. Result? Well...I believe that we have a general consensus of how the war3 gameplay feels like, and I would say that many of the people reading this forum do not like it."
I don't like WC3. But it's because of the gameplay, with the heroes and all, not that the interface is more noob friendly. Even if you want a less "noob friendly" interface, you have to admit that it is the gameplay that sets the games apart in this case, not the interface.
12. "Even if micro is going to become harder in SC2, by making the macro just as hard as BW you will have to achieve even a higher level of skill to master SC2 rather then BW."
But even the very best players, after 10 years, can not do all the things they would like to do. So there is absolutely no need for this extra potential for skill.
Another thing I would like to point out at this point is that the people at TL.net are obviously biased. People like me who doesn't like that there is a big dexterity requirement has left SC for other games. Even if StarCraft is very popular, maybe it would have been even more popular if the interface would have been better. I know I certainly would have liked it more.
Poll: What do you think about the interface improvements? (Vote): Good (Vote): Bad (Vote): Not sure
You're alienated by the amount of dexterity it takes to play starcraft effectively
and thus starcraft 2 should not have as much dexterity involved.
Doesn't that make this entirely opinion? I mean, if you say there doesn't have to be any difference between board games and computer games, then you imply that you simply want this to be a mind game, winner determined by decisions in strategy. Many people don't. Saying tl.net is biased is true, yes, many of us are more inclined toward keeping the dexterity. I don't get what's wrong with that, though. Computer games have variety, one of the features that made starcraft unique was the dexterity involved. You want to take that away, based on your opinion of what a perfect computer game would be.
All you're doing is regurgitating the opinions of the people that want starcraft 2 to require less dexterity to play. And all you're going to get out of this thread is people regurgitating their opinions wanting to keep as much dexterity in.
Here ill keep it simple, removing the dexterity that it takes to play SC is bad for RTS. Doesnt one ever think that there is a reason for SC being the greatest RTS ever created?
um given the fact that three extremely similar topics have been spawned recently, maybe it'd be better to have posted this is another mbs thread instead of starting your own. You can repost this and if it was closed it'd be better.
Maybe, but I wanted to defend the interface improvments because to me it looked as if there had been many threads about how the changes to the interface are bad. And I had not seen many or good arguments for it. Maybe I missed them. Also, other threads just focused on some particular change.
I wanted to start this, a little more philosophical, discussion about games in general. Maybe I could have posted this as a reply to another thread. But I felt that it was dissimilar to a degree that merited a new thread. Sorry if you feel differently.
It's a good first post! Welcome to tl.net, and good counterarguments there but it's a big opinion that you have that dexterity is not needed in the game, but what you don't realize is that it's not just dexterity. Starcraft is a game in which you need to know what to do in what situation, which requires full knowledge of every aspect of the game, and you need to execute it. If it's easy to execute, there's no point in playing the game because it becomes just like your 'chess' example. All you need to do is know what to do, and you can execute it easily and perfectly, which makes no point in the game.
I don't think it's fair that I can't play in the NFL. No matter how much I eat and how hard I train, I'll never weigh more than 185lbs, and I'm stuck at 5'8" (and shrinking). I think the NFL should use two-hand-touch rules. There's no way I can tackle a 6"5, 350lb guy, but I can certainly touch him. Think about how much energy NFL players waste in trying to take a guy down and trying not to get taken down when they could better use that energy for running wider routes, marking their receiver better, or going no-huddle. This would make for a game that is much easier to perfect, and doesn't have artificial limitations on who can and can't be successful. I think it would be much more fun to watch a game where players run perfect routes and can throw a perfect pass every time because they are not fatigued be this "tackling" requirement. This would make professional football a much more successful spectator sport, allow for much better competition because everyone would be in the pool of potential NFL players, and obviously make a lot more money for the league, the teams, the owners, and everyone involved.
...
Changing a key aspect that led to the competitiveness, fun, and success of any sport, be it athletic or electronic, is absolutely asinine. "But it could be better than it is!" is really not a gamble worth taking, especially when all rational thought suggests the opposite. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
On September 09 2007 12:46 Superiorwolf wrote: It's a good first post! Welcome to tl.net, and good counterarguments there but it's a big opinion that you have that dexterity is not needed in the game, but what you don't realize is that it's not just dexterity. Starcraft is a game in which you need to know what to do in what situation, which requires full knowledge of every aspect of the game, and you need to execute it. If it's easy to execute, there's no point in playing the game because it becomes just like your 'chess' example. All you need to do is know what to do, and you can execute it easily and perfectly, which makes no point in the game.
Thanks!
But, I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
"Starcraft is a game in which you need to know what to do in what situation, which requires full knowledge of every aspect of the game..."
Yes, and there are many aspects besides dexterity...
But I don't understand the rest. "...no point in playing the game because it becomes just like your 'chess' example". Huh?
On September 09 2007 12:51 LonelyMargarita wrote: I don't think it's fair that I can't play in the NFL. No matter how much I eat and how hard I train, I'll never weigh more than 185lbs, and I'm stuck at 5'8" (and shrinking). I think the NFL should use two-hand-touch rules. There's no way I can tackle a 6"5, 350lb guy, but I can certainly touch him. Think about how much energy NFL players waste in trying to take a guy down and trying not to get taken down when they could better use that energy for running wider routes, marking their receiver better, or going no-huddle. This would make for a game that is much easier to perfect, and doesn't have artificial limitations on who can and can't be successful. I think it would be much more fun to watch a game where players run perfect routes and can throw a perfect pass every time because they are not fatigued be this "tackling" requirement. This would make professional football a much more successful spectator sport, allow for much better competition because everyone would be in the pool of potential NFL players, and obviously make a lot more money for the league, the teams, the owners, and everyone involved.
...
Changing a key aspect that led to the competitiveness, fun, and success of any sport, be it athletic or electronic, is absolutely asinine. "But it could be better than it is!" is really not a gamble worth taking, especially when all rational thought suggests the opposite. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
This argument is kind of like the argument in my first post regarding tennis. Some sports/games can't be changed. Like aiming in FPS games; it can't be removed. But some interface improvements can be made to SC, and it looks like Blizzard is going to make them.
On September 09 2007 12:46 Superiorwolf wrote: It's a good first post! Welcome to tl.net, and good counterarguments there but it's a big opinion that you have that dexterity is not needed in the game, but what you don't realize is that it's not just dexterity. Starcraft is a game in which you need to know what to do in what situation, which requires full knowledge of every aspect of the game, and you need to execute it. If it's easy to execute, there's no point in playing the game because it becomes just like your 'chess' example. All you need to do is know what to do, and you can execute it easily and perfectly, which makes no point in the game.
Thanks!
But, I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
"Starcraft is a game in which you need to know what to do in what situation, which requires full knowledge of every aspect of the game..."
Yes, and there are many aspects besides dexterity...
But I don't understand the rest. "...no point in playing the game because it becomes just like your 'chess' example". Huh?
What I'm trying to say is that if dexterity is removed, then applying the knowledge that you know becomes way too easy. Say if you see them doing a certain build, and then you know the counter to that build. You can execute it perfectly if there is no dexterity involved. For example, vultures SHOULD suck versus dragoons, but if you can lay mines very well, then you can kill them. However, if there is NO dexterity, then vultures will always win, or they will be nerfed and dragoons will always win. There aren't exact counters sometimes, it just depends on how well you can execute the strategy, so if there is no dexterity then there are exact counters and it ruins the game because there is no point in playing if everything is easy to do.
If they go marines, then if you get lurkers you have to still micro to beat the marines. If it is easy to do, then it's gg right there, which ruins the game.
On September 09 2007 12:51 LonelyMargarita wrote: I don't think it's fair that I can't play in the NFL. No matter how much I eat and how hard I train, I'll never weigh more than 185lbs, and I'm stuck at 5'8" (and shrinking). I think the NFL should use two-hand-touch rules. There's no way I can tackle a 6"5, 350lb guy, but I can certainly touch him. Think about how much energy NFL players waste in trying to take a guy down and trying not to get taken down when they could better use that energy for running wider routes, marking their receiver better, or going no-huddle. This would make for a game that is much easier to perfect, and doesn't have artificial limitations on who can and can't be successful. I think it would be much more fun to watch a game where players run perfect routes and can throw a perfect pass every time because they are not fatigued be this "tackling" requirement. This would make professional football a much more successful spectator sport, allow for much better competition because everyone would be in the pool of potential NFL players, and obviously make a lot more money for the league, the teams, the owners, and everyone involved.
...
Changing a key aspect that led to the competitiveness, fun, and success of any sport, be it athletic or electronic, is absolutely asinine. "But it could be better than it is!" is really not a gamble worth taking, especially when all rational thought suggests the opposite. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
This argument is kind of like the argument in my first post regarding tennis. Some sports/games can't be changed. Like aiming in FPS games; it can't be removed. But some interface improvements can be made to SC, and it looks like Blizzard is going to make them.
Also, you might not consider it broken, but I do.
How can you arbitrarily make that decision, when all evidence points towards the opposite?
Its more than "dexterity" as you put it, what you think is dexterous may be easy for someone else who uses their brain. Your trying to make a broad statement about the skill it takes to play starcraft.
When I was at Blizzcon playing SC2, I was very happy with the MBS and automining. It allowed me to do more of the things I always think about in SC, but am unable to do because of my slow hands.
I do not think the MBS and automining remove too much of the skill from the game. For the gross majority of players, playing at high speeds is not an option. Taking away some of the dexterity requirements will help make people better players.
However, the game still rewards those with quick hands, and it always will. These features simply raise the bottom level players up a bit, it does not push down the best players. I think having a game where the noobs, by far the majority, can be slightly more skilled is good for the game. It keeps them active for a longer period of time.
On September 09 2007 12:34 HunterGatherer wrote: Here ill keep it simple, removing the dexterity that it takes to play SC is bad for RTS. Doesnt one ever think that there is a reason for SC being the greatest RTS ever created?
There are many reasons, but the outdated interface is not one of them.
On September 09 2007 13:02 Superiorwolf wrote: What I'm trying to say is that if dexterity is removed, then applying the knowledge that you know becomes way too easy. Say if you see them doing a certain build, and then you know the counter to that build. You can execute it perfectly if there is no dexterity involved. For example, vultures SHOULD suck versus dragoons, but if you can lay mines very well, then you can kill them. However, if there is NO dexterity, then vultures will always win, or they will be nerfed and dragoons will always win. There aren't exact counters sometimes, it just depends on how well you can execute the strategy, so if there is no dexterity then there are exact counters and it ruins the game because there is no point in playing if everything is easy to do.
If they go marines, then if you get lurkers you have to still micro to beat the marines. If it is easy to do, then it's gg right there, which ruins the game.
Ah yes, good point! But, the interface improvments take away some of the (imo) boring stuff, like having to click on all your gateways, or ordering your newly built workers to gather minerals, etc.
And also, I'm not SURE about the scenario that you are describing. That vultures would win every time against dragoons. Because it depends on the position of the units, what other units the players have, etc. It's kind of like in chess; the Queen is the "best" unit, but she can still be killed by other, "weaker" units, depending on the situation. Not a very good comparison, I know. But, you get my point, I hope. You know, how come Chess can be pretty "deep" and strategic even if it requires no dexterity. I'm just not sure... but good point.
On September 09 2007 12:51 LonelyMargarita wrote: I don't think it's fair that I can't play in the NFL. No matter how much I eat and how hard I train, I'll never weigh more than 185lbs, and I'm stuck at 5'8" (and shrinking). I think the NFL should use two-hand-touch rules. There's no way I can tackle a 6"5, 350lb guy, but I can certainly touch him. Think about how much energy NFL players waste in trying to take a guy down and trying not to get taken down when they could better use that energy for running wider routes, marking their receiver better, or going no-huddle. This would make for a game that is much easier to perfect, and doesn't have artificial limitations on who can and can't be successful. I think it would be much more fun to watch a game where players run perfect routes and can throw a perfect pass every time because they are not fatigued be this "tackling" requirement. This would make professional football a much more successful spectator sport, allow for much better competition because everyone would be in the pool of potential NFL players, and obviously make a lot more money for the league, the teams, the owners, and everyone involved.
...
Changing a key aspect that led to the competitiveness, fun, and success of any sport, be it athletic or electronic, is absolutely asinine. "But it could be better than it is!" is really not a gamble worth taking, especially when all rational thought suggests the opposite. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
This argument is kind of like the argument in my first post regarding tennis. Some sports/games can't be changed. Like aiming in FPS games; it can't be removed. But some interface improvements can be made to SC, and it looks like Blizzard is going to make them.
Also, you might not consider it broken, but I do.
How can you arbitrarily make that decision, when all evidence points towards the opposite?
SC is a economy based macro game. Micro is very spectacular, but its true impact to the game must be measured against the macro foundations : how much you increase the cost-effectiveness of the unit, and as well as how much hurt you did to your opponents multitasking relative to the attention you spent on it yourself.
I'm afraid if you don't realize this, we can't even have a decent discussion, because you are just basically thrashing the competitive community and what we built up. You don't realize how important those 'boring parts' are to the overall game, EVEN WHEN your watching the spectacular moments, they are really only impressive because of these 'boring parts'.
Plus some of us are just prefer to be banana-eating, macro loving, gorilla monsters. We find it fun. Live with it.
On September 09 2007 13:03 HunterGatherer wrote: Its more than "dexterity" as you put it, what you think is dexterous may be easy for someone else who uses their brain. Your trying to make a broad statement about the skill it takes to play starcraft.
Yes, I admit, if two people with the same "dexterity", one who has played SC and one not having played it, played the game, it would look as if the one who has played SC before have more dexterity.
But, there are still some things that I think is boring with the game, and these are the tasks that could be done automatically by a better interface. Just think about it, if it could be done by a better interface, then it doesn't require so much thought/ingeniousness/cleverness in the first place, and those things are boring. When we see BoxeR come up with some new strategy, that is what is fun to watch, not that he can order his SCVs to gather minerals.
On September 09 2007 13:27 tufflax wrote: But, there are still some things that I think is boring with the game, and these are the tasks that could be done automatically by a better interface. Just think about it, if it could be done by a better interface, then it doesn't require so much thought/ingeniousness/cleverness in the first place, and those things are boring. When we see BoxeR come up with some new strategy, that is what is fun to watch, not that he can order his SCVs to gather minerals.
Its not boring. You just don't understand the game well enough to appreciate those subtle aspects.
On September 09 2007 13:26 Aphelion wrote: SC is a economy based macro game. Micro is very spectacular, but its true impact to the game must be measured against the macro foundations : how much you increase the cost-effectiveness of the unit, and as well as how much hurt you did to your opponents multitasking relative to the attention you spent on it yourself.
I'm afraid if you don't realize this, we can't even have a decent discussion, because you are just basically thrashing the competitive community and what we built up. You don't realize how important those 'boring parts' are to the overall game, EVEN WHEN your watching the spectacular moments, they are really only impressive because of these 'boring parts'.
Plus some of us are just prefer to be banana-eating, macro loving, gorilla monsters. We find it fun. Live with it.
Yes, I'm realizing it. And in my first post I said something about the prioritizing part of the game. But if you like it, then so be it.
On September 09 2007 13:27 tufflax wrote: But, there are still some things that I think is boring with the game, and these are the tasks that could be done automatically by a better interface. Just think about it, if it could be done by a better interface, then it doesn't require so much thought/ingeniousness/cleverness in the first place, and those things are boring. When we see BoxeR come up with some new strategy, that is what is fun to watch, not that he can order his SCVs to gather minerals.
Its not boring. You just don't understand the game well enough to appreciate those subtle aspects.
If you don't think I understand, then please explain it to me.
The "boring parts" are not quite so boring sometimes, because it builds up to the "climax". Take an action movie for example. The main point is the action. You watch as people do "boring" things like walk and talk, or drive into a garage, but it's not so boring, because it sets up the movie for the action. (unless you actually do get bored during the non-action parts of an action movie, and then this example wouldn't fit you)
But I still think that MBS shouldn't be completely removed, because it would be nice to get an SC that is updated in both graphics and gameplay, rather than one that is only graphically updated. But I think that MBS should still be tweaked again. There have been a few ideas on how SC2 could be on the middle ground of the two extremes of the MBS debate. Also, as in at least one of the other threads, MBS will aid the newer players, and allow them to stay, and possibly go pro. But this will require that the space removed by MBS is filled, which is why it still needs some tweaking. I think I was impartial to the interface when I first played SC, because that was my first RTS other than a few minutes of Age of Empires 2, and SC is much simpler than AoE2. But when I played warcraft 3, I liked the ability to select multiple buildings, and in UMS it really helps a lot. But I didn't really like the gameplay of WC3 too much. So that means that it could be possible for SC2 to have the current updated interface and sc gameplay and possibly still be good, but with a few changes, Blizzard could achieve a perfect balance again.
I have finally converted to the anti-MBS and now can fully understand the incredible (lack of)logic behind this:
Hwasin queued 5 scvs towards the end. This is not because the game requires too much speed, it's just because Hwasin is such a noob that he makes such newbie maneuvers. In conclusion: MBS and auto mine will help only noobs like Hwasin to macro properly and beat the pros and will destroy the skill needed to play the game. I'm just fucking curious which are these pros that will suffer from these changes and lose the advantage they have over some inferior players. They are obviously WAY above Hwasin's level.
lololol, did you saw how he was completely forgetting about barracks and minerals in the middle of fights? His mineral count raised over 2,5k! Only imagine what advantage this noob will get with MBS and automining. How he'd suddenly start wining WCGs, OSLs, MSLs. This nonsense is intolerable Im soo agree with ya! Will fight to the end with Blizzard's blindness
I don't understand lololol's argument at all. He is being sarcastic but at the same time his point corrected by his sarcasm actually proves the opposite.
This vod proves they can't add MBS and auto-mine because pros don't come even close what one would be able to do with these interface features.
If the MBS system would prevent a top professional like Hwasin from playing so far removed from perfectly then imagine how much it will help out a beginner.
I think your compare Starcraft to chess like it was the same thing, which it isn't. You can't just assume the games are similar, or even should be.
Starcraft is a REAL-TIME Strategy game which should require speed and dexterity to master, and when you take that away you DO take away skill from the game.
Imagine a PvT where a totally noob toss just has to press a button for building a worker all the time and the worker mines automatically etc. Then build alot of gateways, and then just select all and press "z" or "d" until you have a 200/200 army. Then attack-move on the terran and with a bit of luck you kill off his army.
Now where is the skill in this?
Btw, you sound like a starcraft noob, and newbs tend to want an easier game that they can be good at. Like Aphelion said, you don't seem to have a very deep understanding of SC, which makes your arguments kind of irrelevant.
There's nothing boring about macro.
It's also ironic that you say that you're no fan of dexterity. Why are you even discussing SC then, which obviously is a game which perhaps requires the most dexterity of any game.
Yeah, beginners will beat Hwasin, too, because of MBS ! And Hwasin will beat the ultimate pros, that will never exist, again because of the same reason!
Jens, so now noobs suddenly have skill, because there is no MBS? LOL WTF are you talking about? MBS does not change the player, it changes the interface and MBS will be implemented in SC2, not BW.
On September 10 2007 01:40 JensOfSweden wrote: I think your compare Starcraft to chess like it was the same thing, which it isn't. You can't just assume the games are similar, or even should be.
Starcraft is a REAL-TIME Strategy game which should require speed and dexterity to master, and when you take that away you DO take away skill from the game.
Imagine a PvT where a totally noob toss just has to press a button for building a worker all the time and the worker mines automatically etc. Then build alot of gateways, and then just select all and press "z" or "d" until you have a 200/200 army. Then attack-move on the terran and with a bit of luck you kill off his army.
Now where is the skill in this?
Btw, you sound like a starcraft noob, and newbs tend to want an easier game that they can be good at. Like Aphelion said, you don't seem to have a very deep understanding of SC, which makes your arguments kind of irrelevant.
There's nothing boring about macro.
It's also ironic that you say that you're no fan of dexterity. Why are you even discussing SC then, which obviously is a game which perhaps requires the most dexterity of any game.
Ok, so you mean that zealots are overpowered and that toss can beat terran wo any expos? If those arent the case the toss player cant do that, wich shows that you dont really understand starcraft well enough to make a good decision on why mbs and automining is bad.
The games macro have a bit more depth than queing units and sending workers to mine, and if you dont see that then im sorry for you.
On September 10 2007 01:40 JensOfSweden wrote: I think your compare Starcraft to chess like it was the same thing, which it isn't. You can't just assume the games are similar, or even should be.
Starcraft is a REAL-TIME Strategy game which should require speed and dexterity to master, and when you take that away you DO take away skill from the game. Imagine a PvT where a totally noob toss just has to press a button for building a worker all the time and the worker mines automatically etc. Then build alot of gateways, and then just select all and press "z" or "d" until you have a 200/200 army. Then attack-move on the terran and with a bit of luck you kill off his army.
Now where is the skill in this?
Btw, you sound like a starcraft noob, and newbs tend to want an easier game that they can be good at. Like Aphelion said, you don't seem to have a very deep understanding of SC, which makes your arguments kind of irrelevant.
There's nothing boring about macro.
It's also ironic that you say that you're no fan of dexterity. Why are you even discussing SC then, which obviously is a game which perhaps requires the most dexterity of any game.
So you mean that just making zealots and dragoons to 200/200 is a recipe for success? And this is what everyone should be doing if we were skilled and dextruos enough? And I sound like a noob?
On September 09 2007 12:13 tufflax wrote: Hey all!
I thought I might write a little bit about the "noob friendly" interface of StarCraft 2 (rallying workers to minerals, unlimited selection of units, selecting more than one building and casting spells while having several casters selected etc.) because a lot of you think that this is, for some reason, a bad idea. But I strongly believe that an improved interface is not a bad thing.
I personally think StarCraft is a great game. But I do not really like playing it because of the interface. So what do I not like about it? Among other things: it's just frustrating not being able to do what one wants. I appreciate the need for a lot of things that "takes skill". The more things that can separate the good players from the bad the better; but not always.
Hold on to your butts.
If the things that separate the good players from the bad are things that are boring, then it's not helping the game. For example: Chess is (probably; since I'm not good at it I can not really tell) a pretty good game. But one could add additional elements to the game that makes it take more skill. Imagine that in Chess, after every move you make, you have to juggle five balls in the air for ten seconds (thanks Sirlin), otherwise your move doesn't count. That would make the game "harder" and "take more skill". But is it something that would be good? It most certainly would not. Why? Because first of all juggling is not as fun as playing a strategy game (of course some may argue with that, but I think most of you agree, more on that later). And second the juggling part of this new Chess is out of place; players who want to play Chess do most likely not want to have to juggle the balls. So, even if something makes the game "take more skill" it is not always a good thing.
I see what you're saying here, regardless of how bad the analogy is. You're saying that macro in SC is redundant and you have to go out of your way to do it. I can agree it's a bit repetitive, but surely not redundant. The entire point of macro is that it forces you to go out of your way to do it, hence forcing you to choose between microing or macroing, which is a very important decision that can lead to winning or losing. Also, note that these decisions are being made constantly throughout the game.
This is the essence of making a better interface in SC2. The macro part of SC:BW is not really fun. Just clicking a lot of buildings (because you can not select many) etc. and "fighting the interface" is like juggling in the above example. It takes skill, but it's a boring skill. So, why is it boring? There is really no interaction with the opponent. You just have to do it. Micro and strategy, on the other hand, depends on what your opponent is doing. Every battle is like a mini strategy game. You have to get inside the mind of your opponent, and counter his moves. This kind of thing is much more fun than just clicking your buildings.
Yes, you interact with your opponent but how is micro less repetitive than macro? You still need speed and dexterity. Also, don't try to tell me there is more strategy in micro than macro, quite frankly, the difference is negligible. Where are you going to cast your storm? All over his units. Where are you going to move your marines? Away from the death spikes. In fact, I'd say micro takes even more speed and dexterity than macro does.
Of course when I say that it is more fun, I'm just expressing my own opinion. But I think most of you actually agree with me on this. Otherwise, you would not be playing SC in the first place. SC is a game of strategy. You have to get into the mind of the opponent, and come up with counters to what he is doing right now. There is no best strategy all the time. The fact that you like SC shows that you like this kind of strategy and mind games more than juggling. There are all kinds of games that focus on dexterity that you could play instead, but you chose SC.
The are plenty of other games that involve massive amounts of strategy and little to no dexterity, yet you choose SC. Chess, Go, or Poker just to name a few.
One of the most popular arguments against an improved interface is that it makes the game require less skill. And that the gap between pro gamers and others will narrow. I'm not convinced by this argument, because there will always be things that the player can do instead of fighting the interface. For example micro even better, attack on multiple fronts etc. No one has ever played a perfect game of SC, and no one will ever play a perfect game of SC2. There will always be lots of things that could be done even better.
Of course it takes less skill, there is no arguing this. The reason many people want to keep macro the way it is now is because the need to multitask. With MBS and auto-mine there is hardly a reason to go back to your base at all. You can micro as you please.
There are some other arguments against the noob friendly interface. And I'm going to respond to some of them now.
Hold on to your butts, again.
1. "If a BW game goes long enough, even the pros known for their perfect mechanics have to make decisions with regard to BW's third resource: time. The top players have to decide how much time to spend with each pressing issue, knowing that the issues ignored will suffer. A computer game shouldn't be built such that if you know what to do, you can automatically do it. That's a board game. For example, in Chess, or Risk, it does not take any skill to move a piece. Simplifying a computer game's interface to the point that the action on screen is just an extension of your thoughts is a big mistake. How much of your decisions actually come through on-screen should be mitigated by hand speed."
The first part of this argument is valid. The skill of prioritizing is real. I can even agree on that there is a little bit of a mind game and strategy involved. But I don't think that it makes up for the boring part after you have decided that you must focus on macro: fighting the interface. And this prioritizing skill is not lost if the game has a better interface. Players will still have to make decisions about what to focus on. For example if fighting multiple battles or even one non-trivial battle.
The second part of the argument is not really an argument at all. It's just an opinion. But nevertheless, I'm somewhat against it. Why shouldn't computer games try to eliminate the dexterity required? I think it would be wonderful, for the reasons stated above. And why should there be some arbitrary difference between board games and computer games? It's true that the actual moving of the pieces in Risk or Chess doesn't take much skill, but the thought behind the moves does. If you think that Chess is somehow too simple then try to beat a grand master.
Another thing about board games: Not many people play board games. Most people think that they are boring. But it's not for this reason (no dexterity required). I believe the reason why many people think they are boring is because they simply are less intense, not being real-time games, among other reasons. The gameplay of Risk, for example, is not that good in the first place.
The first part is opinion, the second part is utterly stupid. How can you compare SC to a board game at all? The third part is the very reason we want to stray away from MBS, it makes things less intense and would probably make things, dare I say, boring.
2. "All games require decision-making but sports also require physical fitness, computer games require hand dexterity, and board games require nothing in addition at all. A tennis player can decide to hit the ball into the far corner, but he can still fail if his body is not capable of such strength and accuracy. It would be silliness to alter the game of tennis in some way such that players are not limited by their physical capabilities. Tennis fans know that the strategical requirements and the physical requirements of the game are already well-balanced."
This is all true. It would be pretty silly to somehow remove the physical skill in Tennis. But it's Tennis, not StarCraft. If the physical skill is removed from Tennis not a whole lot would be left. If dexterity, in some way, was removed from StarCraft on the other hand, the things left that require skill are still abundant.
It's funny how you can think his analogy with Tennis is retarded but your Chess + ball juggling isn't. Here's the difference, the physical aspect of Tennis is accepted to be essentially a requirement, it's part of Tennis. Your example with Chess brings juggling balls out of no where to make it seem stupid and redundant (which it is, but it makes no sense).
The main difference, again, is that you see macro (I mean non-MBS macro) is something that's unessecary and I see it as something that is necessary to preserve the integrity of the SC name for reasons I have given and will give.
3. "Other RTS's have been going that [noob friendly] direction and their games hold interest for less than a year."
I don't know what games you are talking about. But it's not the noob friendliness that makes them bad, it's the balance and gameplay.
Macro isn't part of gameplay? What? SC's gameplay is unique due to balance. Balance between races, macro and micro, and mental and physical. This is why we still play to this day.
4. "Massive groups of unlimited or even over 20 units is a pretty bad idea. It takes away from a lot of micro aspects."
This argument is true in a way. But micro is really about two things. Dexterity and knowing what to do. And as you probably guessed by now, I'm not a big fan of dexterity. But nevertheless, SC2, with the interface improvements, will still require dexterity. And players will not be able to micro properly with all of their units in one big group anyway.
Units sure can attack move though. There's a huge difference between mindlessly attack moving all of your units and only being able to send 3 groups because you're too slow. Just like there is a huge difference in mindlessly producing Zealots and not producing Zealots at all. Regardless, I wouldn't mind a bigger control group, just not unlimited.
5. "From personal talks with many of the best Warcraft 3 players they complain that many of their players can take a year off, not practice, come back and get 1st or 2nd in a prestigious tournament.
Even if that really is the case, I don't see anything wrong with it. If the player is really good and can pull it off, then he deserves to win. It's still a game of skill and there is nothing to complain about. Unless of course they can win because of imbalance or something like that. But that's something else.
Please apply this logic to any other sport or game. "Oh, you know, I took a year off and just won the tourney." ?
6. "Starcraft 2 is making it easier to decrease skill gaps between players. Which is a bad thing. Because you do not respect the players as much, there is less to do, and the game becomes much less intense, thus less fun."
As discussed above, I think there will always be plenty of things to do. Just less boring things.
Fully opinion and very untrue. People seem to thing micro is some super strategic aspect of the game. All you're doing is moving units. When we see Boxer micro his mnm against lurkers do we say "oh how strategic"? No, we say "What a goddamn pimp". Anyone can think of doing what Boxer does, but it's the physical part of it that makes it impressive.
7. "All professional gamers I have talked to agree that you shouldn't be able to take months off practice then win a prestigious tournament with all the best players nor place 2nd in it. With the simplifying of SC into SC2, thus far it feels like this is what they are doing."
If I were a pro gamer, I would not have any problem with someone taking months off and then still win. If I were the one beaten it would be a little embarrassing. But I don't think this will be a real issue in SC2 because, as I have said earlier, it will still require dexterity etc.
What I would find frustrating though is if I would be forced to take a few months off and lose much of my skill (happens even if one is not a pro). That is a bigger problem in my opinion.
Apply this logic to any other sport or game. Maybe if the guy taking time off is already considered to be way above the rest, but that doesn't happen too much in SC.
8. "RTS should have a mix of many characteristics. If someone's going to bullshit and say it should be all about strategy, and lower skilled people should be able to keep up and nearly be able to macro like Reach by pressing 4z on 10 gateways... then they might as well make it a turn based game."
It's not just the fingers that have a hard time performing. The mind is also pressed for time. And again, SC2 is going to require dexterity.
Stop saying "SC2 is going to require dexterity" like it actually satisfies the argument. The mind is pressed for time? To do what? Decide which units to move or where to micro? That's the same effect as macro, but without the macro.
9. "Games should be difficult and take skill. It should take speed, strategy, timing, economy management, game control, etc... and many other factors that make the game great and intense. SC2 still takes skill, but it's not nearly as difficult or intense as playing SC. Thus, comes off as less fun in general."
If it truly is less intense and less difficult for the fingers, I would be very happy. But I don't believe it until I see it for myself.
What you quoted has nothing to do with fingers. It's a very good point that you just dismissed, a game that doesn't have all of that is not StarCraft.
10. "As has been said by testie and nony, the execution difficulty is vital for the game to be fun to watch and have great potential for skill. Making the UI so forgiving for new players removes this execution difficulty. Imagine if you had the same shooting skill in golf as Tiger Woods, and all you had to do was know what club to select."
Golf is not StarCraft. (This might be the worst argument I've heard so far.)
I shouldn't but I will. Chess + juggling balls, enough said. Again, this boils down to whether macro a part of SC (the franchise) or not.
11. "Blizzard tried to make skill difference show in micro with warcraft3 - they noobified the macro/base management process. Result? Well...I believe that we have a general consensus of how the war3 gameplay feels like, and I would say that many of the people reading this forum do not like it."
I don't like WC3. But it's because of the gameplay, with the heroes and all, not that the interface is more noob friendly. Even if you want a less "noob friendly" interface, you have to admit that it is the gameplay that sets the games apart in this case, not the interface.
How can you even say this? Macro contributes so much to SC's gameplay.
12. "Even if micro is going to become harder in SC2, by making the macro just as hard as BW you will have to achieve even a higher level of skill to master SC2 rather then BW."
But even the very best players, after 10 years, can not do all the things they would like to do. So there is absolutely no need for this extra potential for skill.
There is plenty of need, this is why the game lasted so long in the first place. A game that doesn't continue to evolve, dies.
Another thing I would like to point out at this point is that the people at TL.net are obviously biased. People like me who doesn't like that there is a big dexterity requirement has left SC for other games. Even if StarCraft is very popular, maybe it would have been even more popular if the interface would have been better. I know I certainly would have liked it more.
Of course TL is biased, do you understand your audience? We are the people who have collectively been keeping the foreign SC scene alive. It has surpassed the status of an ordinary game to more of a hobby.
I'm just going to say this, I don't care whether you implent MBS or automine or not as it doesn't effect me directly. What I am concerned about is the longevity, competitiveness, and just plain fun of SC's successor.
What you have to understand it's not one defining characteristic that makes SC, it's the way all of these characteristics combine that make it great game. What you propose we do is add more creme and brew a lighter coffee.
On September 09 2007 13:27 tufflax wrote: But, there are still some things that I think is boring with the game, and these are the tasks that could be done automatically by a better interface. Just think about it, if it could be done by a better interface, then it doesn't require so much thought/ingeniousness/cleverness in the first place, and those things are boring. When we see BoxeR come up with some new strategy, that is what is fun to watch, not that he can order his SCVs to gather minerals.
Its not boring. You just don't understand the game well enough to appreciate those subtle aspects.
eliminate the time it takes to do simple and repetitive tasks and you get pros spending more time on extremely complex manouvers. imagine the pimpest plays of today being a staple in every game. and the pimpest plays of sc2 being unfathomable feats in sc1. does anybody really think that by improving the interface people will automatically play slowly? hell no, it means they'll focus their speed on more important matters.
I agree that Tufflax is obviously missing the whole point to the anti-MBS side. Tearing apart his arguments doesn't prove anything. Try countering mine from the other thread then you can say that you've made a point.
On the other hand, I also think that the average player will agree with Tufflax's mindset than the anti-MBS crowd (the polls are in favor EVEN ON TL.net). Thus, regardless of how "flawed" you think they are, Blizzard must respect this when designing SC2.
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.
You're missing the point of the pro-MBS side. It's not perfect now, and it never will be perfect even with MBS. It will just become slightly closer there for EVERYONE. This means you're adding overall skill into the game, which can only be a good thing. It would be even better IMO, if there are other macro-related tasks to take up some of that time, which I'm sure there will be in SC2.
On September 10 2007 05:11 Nintu wrote: 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.
That decision is still there. It just takes maybe half a second less time than it took before for the pros.
On September 10 2007 05:11 Nintu wrote: 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."
I disagree with this. They didn't make a conscious judgment to let workers idle. They were just preoccupied with something else and forgot to. It takes them maybe half a second or less to send an idle worker to mine and get back to what they were doing before. Any player who is considered to have superior macro than another will be less likely to have idle workers.
On September 10 2007 05:11 Nintu wrote: 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.
This is your personal opinion. I'd rather not see careless play if one is considered the best in the world.
Which is more exciting? One player winning a game because they outplayed their opponent with a "pimpest play", or a win only because his opponent played sloppily? Look at who are some of the most popular players in Korea like BoxeR and Nal_rA. They are known for their unorthodox/creative/daring plays that won them games, not because they played more flawlessly than the other player. In SC2, this will only become more important to winning a game than it currently is, so you will see even more of these "plays" to differentiate between the best.
On September 10 2007 05:11 Nintu wrote: Starcraft will nolonger be 50%/50% macro/micro, it will be 20%/50% with a lot of free time.
What are you judging these %'s on? How much time is spent on each? 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.
Next, for the average SC newbie, it's probably true that a majority of their time is actually spent producing units. They will then a-attack these units and continue producing more. That is NOT a good thing. This will change with MBS, now they will actually try to focus on controlling them better if macroing is made easier, instead of sending them out on suicide missions. This means additional skill will be added to the game.
Finally, I would personally prefer if some other macro-related aspect was placed in to increase time spent, that is not due to an ARTIFICIAL LIMIT by the UI (i.e. like the Protoss warpgates). So, I think it's better to try to come up with new ideas instead of debating about a design choice that's already coming.
On September 10 2007 06:45 orangedude wrote: Mahnini:
This is too easy for you.
I agree that Tufflax is obviously missing the whole point to the anti-MBS side. Tearing apart his arguments doesn't prove anything. Try countering mine from the other thread then you can say that you've made a point.
On the other hand, I also think that the average player will agree with Tufflax's mindset than the anti-MBS crowd (the polls are in favor EVEN ON TL.net). Thus, regardless of how "flawed" you think they are, Blizzard must respect this when designing SC2.
Your thread has nothing to counter, if they can have MBS but also require you to spend as much time macroing as microing I'm all for it.
As for the poll results, a good portion of TL avoids the SC2 section like aids.
What matters is how flawed Blizzard thinks these arguments are, in this case the OP think we want to keep macro because we can't let go or something. Like I said before, come up with something that can replace the actual building of units but takes the same amount of attention and essentially "distraction" and I'll welcome MBS with open arms. The only problem is, I doubt anything can actually fill that role.
My above post also says this (read it carefully): the best option by far is to keep MBS in and create new macro options (and that requires good ideas). However, even if the second part doesn't happen, its still not the end of the world. Its possible that even then, this will improve SC competition as a whole.
But either way, new macro options are what we should be focusing on.
There's already a good example of this: Warpgates. Tech addons for Terran may also play a role? Also any ideas at all for the zerg are good, since it's completely in the open atm.
If we don't have anything yet, then we need to keep thinking. It seems like the people who do not want MBS are more interested in somehow convincing Blizzard to remove it from the game (which IMO is not going to happen), rather than coming up with ideas.
EDIT: Make MBS an official TL.net poll then (without biased wording).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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 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 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 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.
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 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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Its much easier to just go repeatedly 5-d in battle without thinking about it. Having to take your eye of it and go back to base to macro 20 gates is much harder.
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.
Its much easier to just go repeatedly 5-d in battle without thinking about it. Having to take your eye of it and go back to base to macro 20 gates is much harder.
Trust me I know this, its my huge weakness in SC.
Yup, this is it, there is a mental question of "Is it worth it to assign my 40 next actions into unit production?" wich will dissapear, and if you like that kind of thing sure, and its a very important question wich can be very hard to answer.
But the thing is, cant we have the same question of "Is it worth my next 40 actions to micro production, or should i just do 10 actions and get a less diverse army, or should i do 2 actions and get a full single unit army. or should i continue to micro not wastin all my money on a single unit army and instead get a diverse army later when i have time?". This would give multitasking a lot more depth, but it wouldnt be as big difference between the choices as before.
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.
Its much easier to just go repeatedly 5-d in battle without thinking about it. Having to take your eye of it and go back to base to macro 20 gates is much harder.
Trust me I know this, its my huge weakness in SC.
You'd be surprised actually how easy it still is to forget in the heat of battle, even if it was just a hotkey. What about when SC is still at the stage of 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z. Is macro effortless during that time for you? Maybe if you have the time to try SC2 beta, we'll see if this weakness is actually improved as much you think.
Even in War3, where there is often only one or two production buildings, I'm quite sure I can win games against 50% of people by macro alone.
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.
Its much easier to just go repeatedly 5-d in battle without thinking about it. Having to take your eye of it and go back to base to macro 20 gates is much harder.
Trust me I know this, its my huge weakness in SC.
You'd be surprised actually how easy it still is to forget in the heat of battle, even if it was just a hotkey. What about when SC is still at the stage of 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z. Is macro effortless during that time for you? Maybe if you have the time to try SC2 beta, we'll see if this weakness is actually improved as much you think.
I know that when my gates are still low in number, say, I'm zealot rushing PvZ its real easy to continually spam 5z6z out of pure inertia without even realizing it. Pulling myself away from the battle in PvT to macro my 20 gates is considerably more difficult.
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.
Its much easier to just go repeatedly 5-d in battle without thinking about it. Having to take your eye of it and go back to base to macro 20 gates is much harder.
Trust me I know this, its my huge weakness in SC.
You'd be surprised actually how easy it still is to forget in the heat of battle, even if it was just a hotkey. What about when SC is still at the stage of 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z. Is macro effortless during that time for you? Maybe if you have the time to try SC2 beta, we'll see if this weakness is actually improved as much you think.
I know that when my gates are still low in number, say, I'm zealot rushing PvZ its real easy to continually spam 5z6z out of pure inertia without even realizing it. Pulling myself away from the battle in PvT to macro my 20 gates is considerably more difficult.
Maybe it is easy for you because you've already trained to that point. It is not so for most players. Same way ALL pros have already trained to be able to queue units from all their gates in a mere second. The only thing limiting them then is MENTAL ability like you pointed out.
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.
Its much easier to just go repeatedly 5-d in battle without thinking about it. Having to take your eye of it and go back to base to macro 20 gates is much harder.
Trust me I know this, its my huge weakness in SC.
You'd be surprised actually how easy it still is to forget in the heat of battle, even if it was just a hotkey. What about when SC is still at the stage of 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z. Is macro effortless during that time for you? Maybe if you have the time to try SC2 beta, we'll see if this weakness is actually improved as much you think.
I know that when my gates are still low in number, say, I'm zealot rushing PvZ its real easy to continually spam 5z6z out of pure inertia without even realizing it. Pulling myself away from the battle in PvT to macro my 20 gates is considerably more difficult.
Maybe it is easy for you because you've already trained to that point. It is not so for most players. Same way ALL pros have already trained to be able to queue units from all their gates in a mere second. The only thing limiting them then is MENTAL ability like you pointed out.
Disingenous argument. Having to GO BACK TO YOUR BASE when performing as difficult micro as the pros do against as tough opponents will ALWAYS be a huge factor no matter how much you train. Its not just finger patterns at that point, you will HAVE to consciously decide to go back to macro. Which is why even pros have idle scvs and production facilities in late game. Yellow was constantly ridiculed for having to go back to his own hatcheries to macro.
And you consider my puny exhibition of doing 5z6z having "trained" to that point? You should have been mocking me for my terrible multitasking and macro. Just how much do you play SC anyways?
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.
Dude what the fuck? "The bat didn't break his skull, his skull is just succumbed to the force of the bat!"
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.
Here's the problem, you don't have to use warp gates, you can just use conventional gateways and unless you can come up with something that can actually take the place of macroing this argument is moot.
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.
Its much easier to just go repeatedly 5-d in battle without thinking about it. Having to take your eye of it and go back to base to macro 20 gates is much harder.
Trust me I know this, its my huge weakness in SC.
And since 5-d is such an easier action to do, it correspondingly is much less effective because pure goons will lose horribly to mass tanks or lings. Going for all one unit is even more suicidal in SC2 because counters seem to be a lot harder, so the top players will still have to go back to their base and click on buildings individually if he doesn't want to get slaughtered by a counter.
btw Starcraft is not close to being played perfectly. Have you ever seen the threads in the strategy forum where someone suggests a micro-intensive strategy based on spell-use and it gets shot down just because it takes enough APM to put a halt on your factories?
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.
Its much easier to just go repeatedly 5-d in battle without thinking about it. Having to take your eye of it and go back to base to macro 20 gates is much harder.
Trust me I know this, its my huge weakness in SC.
And since 5-d is such an easier action to do, it correspondingly is much less effective because pure goons will lose horribly to mass tanks or lings. Going for all one unit is even more suicidal in SC2 because counters seem to be a lot harder, so the top players will still have to go back to their base and click on buildings individually if he doesn't want to get slaughtered by a counter.
btw Starcraft is not close to being played perfectly. Have you ever seen the threads in the strategy forum where someone suggests a micro-intensive strategy based on spell-use and it gets shot down just because it takes enough APM to put a halt on your factories?
Like I said before pure dragoon is better than no units at all. We all know how quickly your bank and build up just within 20 seconds of not macroing.
Edit: In fact, you can just 5z as soon as your goons are done and have a nice balanced army while you're still microing.
Who said SC is being played perfectly? Where did this come from?
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.
Its much easier to just go repeatedly 5-d in battle without thinking about it. Having to take your eye of it and go back to base to macro 20 gates is much harder.
Trust me I know this, its my huge weakness in SC.
And since 5-d is such an easier action to do, it correspondingly is much less effective because pure goons will lose horribly to mass tanks or lings. Going for all one unit is even more suicidal in SC2 because counters seem to be a lot harder, so the top players will still have to go back to their base and click on buildings individually if he doesn't want to get slaughtered by a counter.
btw Starcraft is not close to being played perfectly. Have you ever seen the threads in the strategy forum where someone suggests a micro-intensive strategy based on spell-use and it gets shot down just because it takes enough APM to put a halt on your factories?
You can still easily assign groups. MBS does make macro way too easy and less attention absorbing.
And typically those threads you describe are just unrealistic and suck, not just from an APM standpoint, but also from economical reasons and lack if understanding of game dynamics. Plus, I would like to see stuff like Boxer's lockdown remain what they are, highly rare, difficult, and spectacular.
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.
Its much easier to just go repeatedly 5-d in battle without thinking about it. Having to take your eye of it and go back to base to macro 20 gates is much harder.
Trust me I know this, its my huge weakness in SC.
You'd be surprised actually how easy it still is to forget in the heat of battle, even if it was just a hotkey. What about when SC is still at the stage of 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z. Is macro effortless during that time for you? Maybe if you have the time to try SC2 beta, we'll see if this weakness is actually improved as much you think.
I know that when my gates are still low in number, say, I'm zealot rushing PvZ its real easy to continually spam 5z6z out of pure inertia without even realizing it. Pulling myself away from the battle in PvT to macro my 20 gates is considerably more difficult.
Maybe it is easy for you because you've already trained to that point. It is not so for most players. Same way ALL pros have already trained to be able to queue units from all their gates in a mere second. The only thing limiting them then is MENTAL ability like you pointed out.
Disingenous argument. Having to GO BACK TO YOUR BASE when performing as difficult micro as the pros do against as tough opponents will ALWAYS be a huge factor no matter how much you train. Its not just finger patterns at that point, you will HAVE to consciously decide to go back to macro. Which is why even pros have idle scvs and production facilities in late game. Yellow was constantly ridiculed for having to go back to his own hatcheries to macro.
And you consider my puny exhibition of doing 5z6z having "trained" to that point? You should have been mocking me for my terrible multitasking and macro. Just how much do you play SC anyways?
Dude, I'm not comparing this to myself, but to MOST people. That's what SC2 is targeted to, the majority. Of course I can easily pull off 2 gate macro during a rush.
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.
Its much easier to just go repeatedly 5-d in battle without thinking about it. Having to take your eye of it and go back to base to macro 20 gates is much harder.
Trust me I know this, its my huge weakness in SC.
You'd be surprised actually how easy it still is to forget in the heat of battle, even if it was just a hotkey. What about when SC is still at the stage of 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z. Is macro effortless during that time for you? Maybe if you have the time to try SC2 beta, we'll see if this weakness is actually improved as much you think.
I know that when my gates are still low in number, say, I'm zealot rushing PvZ its real easy to continually spam 5z6z out of pure inertia without even realizing it. Pulling myself away from the battle in PvT to macro my 20 gates is considerably more difficult.
Maybe it is easy for you because you've already trained to that point. It is not so for most players. Same way ALL pros have already trained to be able to queue units from all their gates in a mere second. The only thing limiting them then is MENTAL ability like you pointed out.
Disingenous argument. Having to GO BACK TO YOUR BASE when performing as difficult micro as the pros do against as tough opponents will ALWAYS be a huge factor no matter how much you train. Its not just finger patterns at that point, you will HAVE to consciously decide to go back to macro. Which is why even pros have idle scvs and production facilities in late game. Yellow was constantly ridiculed for having to go back to his own hatcheries to macro.
And you consider my puny exhibition of doing 5z6z having "trained" to that point? You should have been mocking me for my terrible multitasking and macro. Just how much do you play SC anyways?
Dude, I'm not comparing this to myself, but to MOST people. That's what SC2 is targeted to, the majority. Of course I can easily pull off 2 gate macro during a rush.
Hold on a second, you're assuming most people can't 5z6z yet you want to implement MBS? Am I the only one who see's the problem here? From your point of view it's actually making it worse for new players if you truly believe people can't 5z6z.
On September 09 2007 12:28 SpiritoftheTuna wrote: So basically what you're saying is
You're alienated by the amount of dexterity it takes to play starcraft effectively
and thus starcraft 2 should not have as much dexterity involved.
Doesn't that make this entirely opinion? I mean, if you say there doesn't have to be any difference between board games and computer games, then you imply that you simply want this to be a mind game, winner determined by decisions in strategy. Many people don't. Saying tl.net is biased is true, yes, many of us are more inclined toward keeping the dexterity. I don't get what's wrong with that, though. Computer games have variety, one of the features that made starcraft unique was the dexterity involved. You want to take that away, based on your opinion of what a perfect computer game would be.
All you're doing is regurgitating the opinions of the people that want starcraft 2 to require less dexterity to play. And all you're going to get out of this thread is people regurgitating their opinions wanting to keep as much dexterity in.
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.
Its much easier to just go repeatedly 5-d in battle without thinking about it. Having to take your eye of it and go back to base to macro 20 gates is much harder.
Trust me I know this, its my huge weakness in SC.
You'd be surprised actually how easy it still is to forget in the heat of battle, even if it was just a hotkey. What about when SC is still at the stage of 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z. Is macro effortless during that time for you? Maybe if you have the time to try SC2 beta, we'll see if this weakness is actually improved as much you think.
I know that when my gates are still low in number, say, I'm zealot rushing PvZ its real easy to continually spam 5z6z out of pure inertia without even realizing it. Pulling myself away from the battle in PvT to macro my 20 gates is considerably more difficult.
Maybe it is easy for you because you've already trained to that point. It is not so for most players. Same way ALL pros have already trained to be able to queue units from all their gates in a mere second. The only thing limiting them then is MENTAL ability like you pointed out.
Disingenous argument. Having to GO BACK TO YOUR BASE when performing as difficult micro as the pros do against as tough opponents will ALWAYS be a huge factor no matter how much you train. Its not just finger patterns at that point, you will HAVE to consciously decide to go back to macro. Which is why even pros have idle scvs and production facilities in late game. Yellow was constantly ridiculed for having to go back to his own hatcheries to macro.
And you consider my puny exhibition of doing 5z6z having "trained" to that point? You should have been mocking me for my terrible multitasking and macro. Just how much do you play SC anyways?
Dude, I'm not comparing this to myself, but to MOST people. That's what SC2 is targeted to, the majority. Of course I can easily pull off 2 gate macro during a rush.
Hold on a second, you're assuming most people can't 5z6z yet you want to implement MBS? Am I the only one who see's the problem here? From your point of view it's actually making it worse for new players if you truly believe people can't 5z6z.
Yes, most people cannot do it to perfection (i.e. keeping building in production 100% of the game). That isn't a problem at all.
On September 10 2007 10:09 Aphelion wrote: The majority posts trash in the supcom forums thinking that TA > SC. If THATS who you are targeting to, your already lost.
It's not a lost cause at all. I'm sure those people don't honestly believe in all those reasons. It's probably just a few major ones such as 12 unit groups and lack of MBS that ticked them off the most. Everything else they're just nitpicking at.
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.
Its much easier to just go repeatedly 5-d in battle without thinking about it. Having to take your eye of it and go back to base to macro 20 gates is much harder.
Trust me I know this, its my huge weakness in SC.
You'd be surprised actually how easy it still is to forget in the heat of battle, even if it was just a hotkey. What about when SC is still at the stage of 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z. Is macro effortless during that time for you? Maybe if you have the time to try SC2 beta, we'll see if this weakness is actually improved as much you think.
I know that when my gates are still low in number, say, I'm zealot rushing PvZ its real easy to continually spam 5z6z out of pure inertia without even realizing it. Pulling myself away from the battle in PvT to macro my 20 gates is considerably more difficult.
Maybe it is easy for you because you've already trained to that point. It is not so for most players. Same way ALL pros have already trained to be able to queue units from all their gates in a mere second. The only thing limiting them then is MENTAL ability like you pointed out.
Disingenous argument. Having to GO BACK TO YOUR BASE when performing as difficult micro as the pros do against as tough opponents will ALWAYS be a huge factor no matter how much you train. Its not just finger patterns at that point, you will HAVE to consciously decide to go back to macro. Which is why even pros have idle scvs and production facilities in late game. Yellow was constantly ridiculed for having to go back to his own hatcheries to macro.
And you consider my puny exhibition of doing 5z6z having "trained" to that point? You should have been mocking me for my terrible multitasking and macro. Just how much do you play SC anyways?
Dude, I'm not comparing this to myself, but to MOST people. That's what SC2 is targeted to, the majority. Of course I can easily pull off 2 gate macro during a rush.
Hold on a second, you're assuming most people can't 5z6z yet you want to implement MBS? Am I the only one who see's the problem here? From your point of view it's actually making it worse for new players if you truly believe people can't 5z6z.
Yes, most people cannot do it to perfection (i.e. keeping building in production 100% of the game). That isn't a problem at all.
On September 10 2007 10:09 Aphelion wrote: The majority posts trash in the supcom forums thinking that TA > SC. If THATS who you are targeting to, your already lost.
It's not a lost cause at all. I'm sure those people don't honestly believe in all those reasons. It's probably just a few major ones such as 12 unit groups and lack of MBS that ticked them off the most. Everything else they're just nitpicking at.
Ok firstly, he was talking about 2gate macroing and how it's reflex to macro during that not the entire game. Secondly, it's a huge problem, this just makes it worse for the new players to get acquainted to the game. If a mid-level player can 5z with MBS 25% of the time and the new player can only 5z 10% of the time he's just going to get run over. A new player would get crushed even harder.
Here's the way I see it, and I'm seeing this through your way just for the hell of it. 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 There are many skill levels in SC but the gap between each is fairly low. The difference between 9 and 10 would be apparent but not too bad and the gap between 1 and 2 would be the same.
1-2-3-4-5 There are less skill levels in SC2 (with MBS) but the gap between each would be significantly larger. A player at skill level 1 would lose worse to a player at skill level 2 than in SC. While it does lower the gap between skill level 3 to 5.
So the improvement in SC is linear in terms of levels not time while the improvement in SC2 with MBS would be great at first but slowly become flat.
I don't know where this came from, random thoughts, carry on.
On September 10 2007 09:14 orangedude wrote: [quote] 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.
Its much easier to just go repeatedly 5-d in battle without thinking about it. Having to take your eye of it and go back to base to macro 20 gates is much harder.
Trust me I know this, its my huge weakness in SC.
You'd be surprised actually how easy it still is to forget in the heat of battle, even if it was just a hotkey. What about when SC is still at the stage of 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z. Is macro effortless during that time for you? Maybe if you have the time to try SC2 beta, we'll see if this weakness is actually improved as much you think.
I know that when my gates are still low in number, say, I'm zealot rushing PvZ its real easy to continually spam 5z6z out of pure inertia without even realizing it. Pulling myself away from the battle in PvT to macro my 20 gates is considerably more difficult.
Maybe it is easy for you because you've already trained to that point. It is not so for most players. Same way ALL pros have already trained to be able to queue units from all their gates in a mere second. The only thing limiting them then is MENTAL ability like you pointed out.
Disingenous argument. Having to GO BACK TO YOUR BASE when performing as difficult micro as the pros do against as tough opponents will ALWAYS be a huge factor no matter how much you train. Its not just finger patterns at that point, you will HAVE to consciously decide to go back to macro. Which is why even pros have idle scvs and production facilities in late game. Yellow was constantly ridiculed for having to go back to his own hatcheries to macro.
And you consider my puny exhibition of doing 5z6z having "trained" to that point? You should have been mocking me for my terrible multitasking and macro. Just how much do you play SC anyways?
Dude, I'm not comparing this to myself, but to MOST people. That's what SC2 is targeted to, the majority. Of course I can easily pull off 2 gate macro during a rush.
Hold on a second, you're assuming most people can't 5z6z yet you want to implement MBS? Am I the only one who see's the problem here? From your point of view it's actually making it worse for new players if you truly believe people can't 5z6z.
Yes, most people cannot do it to perfection (i.e. keeping building in production 100% of the game). That isn't a problem at all.
On September 10 2007 10:09 Aphelion wrote: The majority posts trash in the supcom forums thinking that TA > SC. If THATS who you are targeting to, your already lost.
It's not a lost cause at all. I'm sure those people don't honestly believe in all those reasons. It's probably just a few major ones such as 12 unit groups and lack of MBS that ticked them off the most. Everything else they're just nitpicking at.
Ok firstly, he was talking about 2gate macroing and how it's reflex to macro during that not the entire game. Secondly, it's a huge problem, this just makes it worse for the new players to get acquainted to the game. If a mid-level player can 5z with MBS 25% of the time and the new player can only 5z 10% of the time he's just going to get run over. A new player would get crushed even harder.
Here's the way I see it, and I'm seeing this through your way just for the hell of it. 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 There are many skill levels in SC but the gap between each is fairly low. The difference between 9 and 10 would be apparent but not too bad and the gap between 1 and 2 would be the same.
1-2-3-4-5 There are less skill levels in SC2 (with MBS) but the gap between each would be significantly larger. A player at skill level 1 would lose worse to a player at skill level 2 than in SC. While it does lower the gap between skill level 3 to 5.
So the improvement in SC is linear in terms of levels not time while the improvement in SC2 with MBS would be great at first but slowly become flat.
I don't know where this came from, random thoughts, carry on.
Let's assume for a second that your theory holds true. Then tell me this. Why is narrowing the skill gap amongst lower level players a bad thing? This makes games more challenging and fun for them, since every game it's more likely that they're paired with someone else that's also close to them in terms of skill level. A group of friends can also play games between each other and have more fair games.
Also you have to take into account that the maximum skill level is also raised. Instead of 1-10 in SC, I think it would become something more like 1,4,7,9,10,11 in SC2. Most skill curves are in fact structured this way.
On September 10 2007 09:16 Aphelion wrote: [quote]
Its much easier to just go repeatedly 5-d in battle without thinking about it. Having to take your eye of it and go back to base to macro 20 gates is much harder.
Trust me I know this, its my huge weakness in SC.
You'd be surprised actually how easy it still is to forget in the heat of battle, even if it was just a hotkey. What about when SC is still at the stage of 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z. Is macro effortless during that time for you? Maybe if you have the time to try SC2 beta, we'll see if this weakness is actually improved as much you think.
I know that when my gates are still low in number, say, I'm zealot rushing PvZ its real easy to continually spam 5z6z out of pure inertia without even realizing it. Pulling myself away from the battle in PvT to macro my 20 gates is considerably more difficult.
Maybe it is easy for you because you've already trained to that point. It is not so for most players. Same way ALL pros have already trained to be able to queue units from all their gates in a mere second. The only thing limiting them then is MENTAL ability like you pointed out.
Disingenous argument. Having to GO BACK TO YOUR BASE when performing as difficult micro as the pros do against as tough opponents will ALWAYS be a huge factor no matter how much you train. Its not just finger patterns at that point, you will HAVE to consciously decide to go back to macro. Which is why even pros have idle scvs and production facilities in late game. Yellow was constantly ridiculed for having to go back to his own hatcheries to macro.
And you consider my puny exhibition of doing 5z6z having "trained" to that point? You should have been mocking me for my terrible multitasking and macro. Just how much do you play SC anyways?
Dude, I'm not comparing this to myself, but to MOST people. That's what SC2 is targeted to, the majority. Of course I can easily pull off 2 gate macro during a rush.
Hold on a second, you're assuming most people can't 5z6z yet you want to implement MBS? Am I the only one who see's the problem here? From your point of view it's actually making it worse for new players if you truly believe people can't 5z6z.
Yes, most people cannot do it to perfection (i.e. keeping building in production 100% of the game). That isn't a problem at all.
On September 10 2007 10:09 Aphelion wrote: The majority posts trash in the supcom forums thinking that TA > SC. If THATS who you are targeting to, your already lost.
It's not a lost cause at all. I'm sure those people don't honestly believe in all those reasons. It's probably just a few major ones such as 12 unit groups and lack of MBS that ticked them off the most. Everything else they're just nitpicking at.
Ok firstly, he was talking about 2gate macroing and how it's reflex to macro during that not the entire game. Secondly, it's a huge problem, this just makes it worse for the new players to get acquainted to the game. If a mid-level player can 5z with MBS 25% of the time and the new player can only 5z 10% of the time he's just going to get run over. A new player would get crushed even harder.
Here's the way I see it, and I'm seeing this through your way just for the hell of it. 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 There are many skill levels in SC but the gap between each is fairly low. The difference between 9 and 10 would be apparent but not too bad and the gap between 1 and 2 would be the same.
1-2-3-4-5 There are less skill levels in SC2 (with MBS) but the gap between each would be significantly larger. A player at skill level 1 would lose worse to a player at skill level 2 than in SC. While it does lower the gap between skill level 3 to 5.
So the improvement in SC is linear in terms of levels not time while the improvement in SC2 with MBS would be great at first but slowly become flat.
I don't know where this came from, random thoughts, carry on.
Let's assume for a second that your theory holds true. Then tell me this. Why is narrowing the skill gap amongst lower level players a bad thing? This makes games more challenging and fun for them, since every game it's more likely that they're paired with someone else that's also close to them in terms of skill level. A group of friends can also play games between each other and have more fair games.
Also you have to take into account that the maximum skill level is also raised. Instead of 1-10 in SC, I think it would become something more like 1,4,7,9,10,11 in SC2. Most skill curves are in fact structured this way.
Read his post again, his point was that skill level difference among lower level would be even greater, not less.
There is pretty solid proof in the form of WC3 that having MBS (and in fact almost removing macro) does not reduce the skill gap between players. A lot of people however are stating emphatically that it will. Is there any direct proof to support this?
On September 10 2007 13:27 Gobol wrote: There is pretty solid proof in the form of WC3 that having MBS (and in fact almost removing macro) does not reduce the skill gap between players. A lot of people however are stating emphatically that it will. Is there any direct proof to support this?
But WC3 DOES NOT have the skill gap that starcraft has. You just provided an example that counters your point entirely.
On September 10 2007 13:27 Gobol wrote: There is pretty solid proof in the form of WC3 that having MBS (and in fact almost removing macro) does not reduce the skill gap between players. A lot of people however are stating emphatically that it will. Is there any direct proof to support this?
But WC3 DOES NOT have the skill gap that starcraft has. You just provided an example that counters your point entirely.
Yes it does. Moon has completely dominated the War3 scene for 2+ years. No other player comes close.
On September 10 2007 13:27 Gobol wrote: There is pretty solid proof in the form of WC3 that having MBS (and in fact almost removing macro) does not reduce the skill gap between players. A lot of people however are stating emphatically that it will. Is there any direct proof to support this?
But WC3 DOES NOT have the skill gap that starcraft has. You just provided an example that counters your point entirely.
Yes it does. Moon has completely dominated the War3 scene for 2+ years. No other player comes close.
Moon im sure is a brilliant player, doesnt mean that the skill gap in warcraft 3 is large. I know for a fact that I stand a much better chance at beating moon in a game of warcraft 3 than I do beating savior in a game of starcraft. The skill gap refers to the difference between your average gamers and the best gamers. In warcraft 3, this difference is nowhere near as vast as it is in starcraft.
Its very important to have a large skill gap btw, with it, progression can be seen much easier. And when players can see how much better theyve become, they are more satisfied and more likely to continue on playing. Ive got replays from when I was a 40APM player just starting out on low-money maps. Its quite funny to look back at those. Its satisfying to be able to see that I am a much more capable player.
EPT
