EPTPeople already expand really quickly/effeciently, the only thing that would change with MBS/Automining is that worse players could play closer to better ones. I don't see how oov will have even more units/bases faster just cause he has MBS/automining. He's already doing everything macro-related pretty much perfectly..
Lets imagine SC1 with MBS. - Page 17
| Forum Index > Closed |
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
People already expand really quickly/effeciently, the only thing that would change with MBS/Automining is that worse players could play closer to better ones. I don't see how oov will have even more units/bases faster just cause he has MBS/automining. He's already doing everything macro-related pretty much perfectly.. | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
I get sooooo bored of the countless fights after a while if I don't take a look into my bases every now and then. I am not alone with my opinion. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On October 03 2007 02:21 ForAdun wrote: Why do people think that everyone prefers watching battles over growing bases? I get sooooo bored of the countless fights after a while if I don't take a look into my bases every now and then. I am not alone with my opinion. which is a huge problem with the pro-MBS crowd. they cannot seem to understand that other players think that macro is more entertaining than micro. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On October 02 2007 20:33 teapot wrote: Very good post uriel-. A lot of people here seem to be very confused as to what constitutes macro. Macromanagement = Thinking/Strategy on a large scale. Micromanagement = Intuitive fast clicking on a small scale. (individual unit strategy if you will) What everyone, who is against MBS, is defending is a redundant "base micro". A thoughtless sequence of clicks to rebuild an army is not macro. The thinking that you need to rebuild certain units and rally them to certain strategic location is macro. The outdated interface is just making macro needlessly harder to accomplish. The kind of macro you appreciate is the kind found in a Real-Time Strategy Game. The kind of Macro that the anti-MBS crowd is worried about losing is the kind found in a Real-Time Strategy Sport. The distinction between the 2 is that the anti-MBS crowd completely understands and appreciates how much thought needs to go into macro, however, despite that being a skill of it's own, they also think it imperative that the player be physically demanded to execute such thought. The "outdated" interface is not making this needlessly harder, it's making it possible. | ||
pheer
5401 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32157 Posts
On October 03 2007 02:52 Mora wrote: which is a huge problem with the pro-MBS crowd. they cannot seem to understand that other players think that macro is more entertaining than micro. I'm slightly different. I don't necessarily think it's really entertaining. I just think that it makes you appreciate the whole package—the fact that savior can have near perfect marco while absolutely raping your base— that much more. =] | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On October 03 2007 03:40 Hawk wrote: I'm slightly different. I don't necessarily think it's really entertaining. I just think that it makes you appreciate the whole package—the fact that savior can have near perfect marco while absolutely raping your base— that much more. =] agreed, kind of. the macro itself may not be entertaining, but the effect it has on the overall game definetly is. and its very easy for people who dont play alot to miss that. | ||
Daigomi
South Africa4316 Posts
On October 03 2007 01:43 FrozenArbiter wrote: Daigomi, I don't see anywhere in your post why you think MBS will suddenly make it so that expanding is easier / faster.. People already expand really quickly/effeciently, the only thing that would change with MBS/Automining is that worse players could play closer to better ones. I don't see how oov will have even more units/bases faster just cause he has MBS/automining. He's already doing everything macro-related pretty much perfectly.. FA, if I didn't state it directly, then I might simply have implied it. As the game progresses players lose efficiency, even Oov. All players have a limit of how many actions can be accomplished per minute. By lowering the number of actions/time required for repetitive tasks, these actions will be spent more effectively utillising the bases that are already built/being built. Watching even the top pro's you often see scv's standing around, and that's just when the observer actually moves over them. By using auto-mining + MBS players will gain one or two seconds per miner that is built, plus they will gain some of the time they usually spend on producing units. This time would then be spent more efficiently running their bases, and expanding. It basically just comes down to the fact that players, even pro-players, have a limit of what they can do every second. If you look at the FPVOD shots in most games you'll see the pro-gamers have a decent amount of minerals, minerals that they would probably wish to spend somewhere if the rewards they would reap from spending those minerals was worth the effort. Why do people think that everyone prefers watching battles over growing bases? I get sooooo bored of the countless fights after a while if I don't take a look into my bases every now and then. I am not alone with my opinion. I never said that I prefer watching battles over growing bases. I just said that as an effect of the increased base production, more battles might take place. These increased battles does not mean that micro will be more important. I was using that as an example to show how increased mobility might be required, which MBS would make possible. Finally, I said in the beginning of my comment that I'm stuck somewhere in the middle of the debate. My whole comment stated what I thought could happen with MBS added, and I tried to show how MBS might not leave a gap in the macro part of the game. | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On October 02 2007 21:06 Zanno wrote: I have a feeling like this argument is going to be like when everyone flipped out about unit queues from war2 -> sc (and the people against queues exagerrated the newbification impact they'd have on the game just as badly as people are now). In war2 you could only queue up one unit at a time so you had to get back to your rax right as soon as the unit popped, thus you had to pay even more attention to your base than in SC. Would anyone mind if you couldn't queue units in SC anymore? Would require good timing on top of good clicking. I guess Tasteless probably would... ? Allowing players to que units only allows bad players to punish themselves by double and tripple queing. I have no problem with this. MBS on the other hand rewards players for focusing excessively on micro while letting money build up, then they can macro out of 10 gates with a simple "4z." I don't think that's a good thing. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On October 03 2007 04:07 MyLostTemple wrote: ? Allowing players to que units only allows bad players to punish themselves by double and tripple queing. I have no problem with this. MBS on the other hand rewards players for focusing excessively on micro while letting money build up, then they can macro out of 10 gates with a simple "4z." I don't think that's a good thing. Well, selecting 5 gates and pressing z has the same penality as selecting 1 gate and queing up 5 zealots. If you got the money to select 5 gates and press z you already wasted production time on that, making it less efficient than manually doing it. Ofcourse its a bit better than queing, but its still a lot worse than doing one at a time. Only time a pro will use mbs is when they have huge money income and a ton of producers, aka when the game is at its peak of macro. A game before the ~12 minutes mark wont get effected much at all and still the effects will be quite minor untill you reach the super income state. I really think that people here blow this way out of proportions, somehow people think that everyone will neglect their bases in sc2 and just focus on armies just beacuse of this etc, wich theres no evidence of at all. Every time you build a structure, every time you dont wanna mbs build since its less efficient, every time you need to hotkey a new building and every time its harrased you need to go there. All you really miss is the "I need to go to my industrial complex to click through all of them every 30 seconds", you dont go to your base, you go to your clump of gateways built close just to negate the effects of sbs. As people have said, worker rally takes a lot more from the game since it effects everyone from the start till finish and got no drawback and cant be worked around as sbs were you build all buildings in close proximity to be able to easily build from all at the same time. But then again worker rally is an extremely important feature much older than mbs, if it werent in the game would get literaly sawed to pieces by critics. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On October 03 2007 05:22 Klockan3 wrote: Well, selecting 5 gates and pressing z has the same penality as selecting 1 gate and queing up 5 zealots. If you got the money to select 5 gates and press z you already wasted production time on that, making it less efficient than manually doing it. Ofcourse its a bit better than queing, but its still a lot worse than doing one at a time. no, if you have 500 minerals built up right as your 5 gates finish their last production round (and you only intend to make zeals) everything is timed perfectly, because you can afford one production round right as the last one finishes. ideally you build up just enough minerals that you can make another production round right as the other finishes, all throughout the game. so yes, people will hit 6z7d, and yes if they do it right it will be perfectly efficient and save them quite a bit of time/focus. | ||
|
iamke55
United States2806 Posts
On October 03 2007 04:07 MyLostTemple wrote: ? Allowing players to que units only allows bad players to punish themselves by double and tripple queing. I have no problem with this. MBS on the other hand rewards players for focusing excessively on micro while letting money build up, then they can macro out of 10 gates with a simple "4z." I don't think that's a good thing. In the same way, having MBS allows only bad players to punish themselves by making only one type of unit, or one unit ratio, which gets walked over if it's tanks vs immortals, and makes them miss out on the "fun" of mass clicking. If the game's quality was about how impressive it is to watch savior play, why not have the monitor disabled for players, so that it's that much more impressive to watch savior mine minerals and build units? After all, you guys do think it's more exciting to watch a base being built than a battle. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32157 Posts
On October 03 2007 05:28 IdrA wrote: no, if you have 500 minerals built up right as your 5 gates finish their last production round (and you only intend to make zeals) everything is timed perfectly, because you can afford one production round right as the last one finishes. ideally you build up just enough minerals that you can make another production round right as the other finishes, all throughout the game. so yes, people will hit 6z7d, and yes if they do it right it will be perfectly efficient and save them quite a bit of time/focus. exactly. take it once step further. i play zerg, so i run out of keys for hatches real fast. now, all id have to do when i expo is bind those to 0 for ones im producing drones, 9 for muta hatches and 8 for ling hatches. theres absolutely no need ffor me to go back to my base. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
he just seemed unaware of it | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On October 03 2007 05:41 Hawk wrote: exactly. take it once step further. i play zerg, so i run out of keys for hatches real fast. now, all id have to do when i expo is bind those to 0 for ones im producing drones, 9 for muta hatches and 8 for ling hatches. theres absolutely no need ffor me to go back to my base. Except to build buildings or rearrange your keys for the zerg change that will force you to build more stuff than mutas and lings, or to research ups. Also it takes quite a while till you have 5 gates and it aint that often you want to build zeals in all of them. And really, this IS less efficient simple beacuse: You had to save up 500 mins sometimes. They dont pop up from nowere. In this specifik scenarion your opponent would on average have 3 more zealots than you, wich is noticeable. Zerg is really screwy with very little diversity in their armies now though, Blizzard have a hard nut to crack there since its so easy to break what made zerg unique. And mbs wouldnt make much difference at all wo worker rally really. On October 03 2007 05:43 IdrA wrote: ya, thats the established argument he just seemed unaware of it Yeah right, im unaware of one of the simplest arguments in this discussion were ive been on from the first topic when they announced this. It will make a difference, never said otherwise, but it wont make such a big difference as you say. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
so yes, it is perfectly efficient if you do it right (and you do the same thing with or without mbs, its just much easier with mbs) | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On October 03 2007 06:04 IdrA wrote: what are you talking about? you accumulate the minerals while you're waiting for the units already building to finish. obviously it doesnt have to be with 5 gates, its with however many gates you have at the time. and if you do it right you have the correct number of gates so that when your production round finishes you have just enough money to start the next one, ie if your economy is such that in the build time of a zealot you save 700 minerals, you should have 7 gates. so yes, it is perfectly efficient if you do it right (and you do the same thing with or without mbs, its just much easier with mbs) Count with me, math aint that hard, lets make up some hypothetical numbers: You gain 100 mins every 10 seconds. You have 5 warpgates. Zealots costs 100 mins and takes 50 seconds to build. Case a You wait till you have 500 mins and builds 1 zealot in each, wich means that at every full n^50 you get 5 zealots. Case b You build 1 zealot asap when you have the mins, wich means that you get 1 zeal every n^10. Thus case b have 1 more zeal at 10 seconds, 2 more zeals at 20 seconds, 3 more zeals at 30 seconds, and 4 more zeals at 40 seconds and same at 50. 1+2+3+4+0/5=2 more zealots on average. Its exactly the same principle as to why you shouldnt que units, it takes longer till you get them that way. | ||
|
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
On October 03 2007 05:41 Hawk wrote: exactly. take it once step further. i play zerg, so i run out of keys for hatches real fast. now, all id have to do when i expo is bind those to 0 for ones im producing drones, 9 for muta hatches and 8 for ling hatches. theres absolutely no need ffor me to go back to my base. So when Savior plays, his hatches are permanently designated to either drone, muta, hydra or ling production? The more skilled the Zerg player is, the more flexible his production needs to be, so I'm sure its very dynamic and he'll always want his units coming out in the exact numbers he wants exactly when he wants, rather than a set ratio determined by the # of hatches in various control groups. IMO, any pro Zerg player will not even be using MBS for the whole early-mid game until he reaches at least 6+ hatches when hotkeys start to become a problem, because MBS just takes away too much precise control over production that a highly skilled zerg player needs. How many hatches does Savior even make in a typical ZvT or ZvP game? I don't think it ever goes above 10 unless it's something like a 45 min long game. Even by then, he still needs precision in unit choice, so I think he'll still manually hot-key his hatches in groups of perhaps 2 per control group rather than 1. | ||
|
mdainoob
United States51 Posts
And really, queing 5 zealots in like two gates is much much worse than batch producing 10 gateways or something. Producing things in rounds does not give much of a disadvantage (most people dont send one unit at a time to support their army while they are fighting lategame... so because the overall output is basically the same it has almot no detrimental effect later stages). Mbs makes producing in rounds much easier. Also, u forgot to point out that queing units is much worse for another reason. While producing in rounds doesn't slow your unit output in the long-run, multiple ques do because by using less production facilities you fall further and further behind in unit production as the game progresses (assuming u continue to queue multiple units throughout the game). I dont see the point in talking abotu that type of "perfect" unit production because its not practical to do it mid-late game, so most players dont bother with it (makes multitasking much harder while not giving much of an advantage anyways). Sure, mbs doesn't make that type of macro easier but people don't macro like that anyways... | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 03 2007 06:12 Klockan3 wrote: Count with me, math aint that hard, lets make up some hypothetical numbers: You gain 100 mins every 10 seconds. You have 5 warpgates. Zealots costs 100 mins and takes 50 seconds to build. Case a You wait till you have 500 mins and builds 1 zealot in each, wich means that at every full n^50 you get 5 zealots. Case b You build 1 zealot asap when you have the mins, wich means that you get 1 zeal every n^10. Thus case b have 1 more zeal at 10 seconds, 2 more zeals at 20 seconds, 3 more zeals at 30 seconds, and 4 more zeals at 40 seconds and same at 50. 1+2+3+4+0/5=2 more zealots on average. Its exactly the same principle as to why you shouldnt que units, it takes longer till you get them that way. Case C You have 5k in the bank and just click 4z5d every 50 seconds. | ||
| ||
