| Forum Index > Closed |
|
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
On October 03 2007 06:35 FrozenArbiter wrote: Case C You have 5k in the bank and just click 4z5d every 50 seconds. If you ever run into Case C (WITH MBS), you'd have to suck pretty damn hard, so you lose by default  | ||
|
uriel-
Singapore1867 Posts
On October 02 2007 22:08 FrozenArbiter wrote: 20% of its physical requirements, yes. I did specify this multiple times even in the same post you quoted, yes? Of course, you are going to put it down to lack of "evidence", as shown below. I don't want more micro over less macro. You won't have to watch me go back to my base, cause you'll be watching from an observers perspective. But I god damn well want to have to go back to my base, or I'll be extremely disappointed. Again, I don't want more micro at the expense of macro - if I liked that concept I could play warcraft 3. And I have seen no evidence of there being a "million more facets to macromanagement" than before.. Everything seems to be more or less the same. I explicitly stated more clicks dedicated to micro and the same number of thinking dedicated to macro. But I guess word-twisting is the flavor of the day here. MBS isn't going to remove macro. Perhaps you group of pr0+++++ players are so accustomed to all the actual THINKING involved in macro that you don't feel like they are there anymore? Well, they are. And I did state the addition of high-yield resources as ONE example, of a game that has no stated release date. I have seen no evidence of there being more than 2 Zerg units either, wtf is this imba? No evidence, no evidence! We are already improving in terms of map design by adding critical resource nodes like double gases or whatever to add aspects to macro, how would high yield resources not benefit this? Oh, and you brought up WC3. Fantastic. Ok see, this is what I take issue with: empty fucking words. You say it's going to add thinking - HOW? You say it's going to take more experience and strategic grasp than SC macro - WHY? So far whenever blizzard has been asked this question, what will replace the 4z5z6z their answer has been 'well.. blink'. Blink is not a fucking replacement for macro, it's a simple micro spell, which ,while definitely being one of my favorites so far, is not going to be all that demanding. The warpgates might be something that could make up for it, but we dunno much about them yet. And finally, yes, SC2 will kill SC1. Yeah sure, there'll be a few hundred, maybe even thousands of players still playing it, but the competitive scene will move on. That's just how it is, SC2 is way different than warcraft 3 - it's the successor in name and spirit, MBS is likely not going to be a big enough deterrent to most people. Hell, maybe not even for me (I mean, I'm buying it regardless, if I stick with it depends on if I'll find it as enjoyable). Because it's the same model as SC, with already ONE added feature of high-yield terrain. Assuming nothing else changes, which is already a bloody stupid assumption, it's still going to be more complicated than SC macro thought-wise. Simple logic no? So far whenever Blizzard has been asked this question, they can't answer concretely because they can't. Hey Blizzard, send us some exclusives of all the Z units and a full playable beta while you're at it! Bringing "Blizzard hasn't said" into this argument is just juvenile when the game is so far from release and everything is so far from complete. Just as you can easily say "MBS is going to kill macro", I can easily say "there will be 200 other features in SC2 that will take clicks outside of making units", and if I can't prove my statement that there will be more new features, you can't prove yours (that there aren't going to be new ones) either. Are we really on a level that low? As for liking to see people clicking on factories rather than a fight, well, that's touching on a personal level I guess. I suppose people like watching probes gather resources as well, so we should all remove probe mining automation so we have to click on the mineral and then on the Nexus for each run of mineral gathering. HEY, isn't that a bloody brilliant idea? | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 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. you're missing the point, you assume your gates are constantly sitting idle waiting for units to be built. and if you macro like that, maybe thats why you want it to be simplified. you want your gates to be constantly running, that is maximum efficiency. to have every gate producing 1 unit at all times, and to not be able to afford to have more gates producing all units at one time. lets say a zeals build time is 30 seconds, and in 30 seconds you accumulate 600 unused minerals. in that case you would want 6 gates, because every 30 seconds your zeals finish, your gates are empty, and you need to build 6 more zeals. if you build zeals any earlier, it wont make any difference. they wont start building until the other ones finish. but if you add gates, then you wont be able to afford to produce out of all of them (since you only get enough minerals to afford 6 gates per production round), meaning the extra gate would be a waste. there is no benefit to building a zeal every time you get 100 minerals, assuming your gateways are constantly producing, which they should be. ideally you only want to make another round of units right as the other round is finishing. | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
On October 03 2007 06:51 uriel- wrote: As for liking to see people clicking on factories rather than a fight, well, that's touching on a personal level I guess. I suppose people like watching probes gather resources as well, so we should all remove probe mining automation so we have to click on the mineral and then on the Nexus for each run of mineral gathering. HEY, isn't that a bloody brilliant idea? That is a very bad argument because the same bloody brilliant idea works for micro management. Lets say every time your units are on a different mode than the "attack mode" they cannot fight back when they get attacked. You'd have to manually tell them to attack. Or if you want to send units around a wall they run right into it. Use another argument, please. | ||
|
uriel-
Singapore1867 Posts
*Swoosh* | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
On October 03 2007 07:10 uriel- wrote: Is this is sound of the whole point flying over your head? *Swoosh* First learn to express yourself correctly. | ||
|
uriel-
Singapore1867 Posts
Now try to catch the point that recently flew over your head. In baby terms... You avoided the whole post, every single point in it, misinterpreted sarcasm as an actual argument and then failed to see the intention of the sarcasm. | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17557 Posts
And having this in mind we can conclude that: 1. The amount of mouse-clicks required to produce units remains almost unchanged. 2. The micro is more intensive. 3. You don't have to look back to your base during the fights (while still macroing). And from here it's just a short way of stating that: SC2 thanks to MBS will be more entertaining, demanding and even harder than SCBW because you will need much more focus and thought to actually macro during the battles (you won't have time to look into your base and you will have to add more units, no more: hell, I have to make more units, pity that big part of my army will die in the meantime.). It's a complete new level of micro/macro/strategy that some of you just don't seem to get a grasp on. Edit: Now please give me the counter-argument and show me how all of this is "noobifying" the game and closing the skill gap between pros and amateurs. | ||
|
uriel-
Singapore1867 Posts
Until then, you aren't attacking the argument, but the person. I never implied that you were getting personal, but you seem to have branded that upon yourself. Does this topic really need people like you? | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
On October 03 2007 07:29 uriel- wrote: Kindly point out where I avoid, misinterpret, and fail. In your case, you cleanly misinterpreted my sarcastic remark at making "macro more difficult" as...hell, I can't even follow your thought process, much less your language. Until then, you aren't attacking the argument, but the person. I never implied that you were getting personal, but you seem to have branded that upon yourself. Does this topic really need people like you? I just refuted your argument. Sarcasm does not belong into a topic like this. This topic needs you as much as me. Now lets get back to topic, please. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
On October 03 2007 07:28 Manit0u wrote: the only difference will come when you have a shitload of production buildings because in SC2 you will be able to hotkey them all (note that you still have to press z,z,z or whatever for producing units and tabbing through the buildings to do so which leaves the same amount of clicks more or less - depends on unit mix) and won't have to look back into your base during the fights to manually select some buildings. And thats also one of the biggest problems. The fact is, macro is significantly made easier through MBS, and people can achieve better macro at less sacrifice to micro and less effort made to it. Hence the skill variation of macro will be lowered. This is the end result we wish to prevent. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
On October 03 2007 06:20 orangedude wrote: 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. So I think you just admitted MBS would favor P and T over Z. Imbalance plz? I just realized another problem with MBS. Even if I grant your argument that good players won't use MBS, it remains the case that the macro of bad players would be helped significantly with MBS. In fact, the more you suck at macro and the more money you accumulate, the more MBS helps. What happened to retaining the gradient of skill between pros and noobs? You are deliberating creating a scenario where good players are barely helped by MBS, whereas bad players are helped immensely. | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
On October 03 2007 07:28 Manit0u wrote: Has anyone read my previous post here? I have shown there that the "clickiness" of macro in SC2 won't differ all that much from SC1, the only difference will come when you have a shitload of production buildings because in SC2 you will be able to hotkey them all (note that you still have to press z,z,z or whatever for producing units and tabbing through the buildings to do so which leaves the same amount of clicks more or less - depends on unit mix) and won't have to look back into your base during the fights to manually select some buildings. And having this in mind we can conclude that: 1. The amount of mouse-clicks required to produce units remains almost unchanged. 2. The micro is more intensive. 3. You don't have to look back to your base during the fights (while still macroing). And from here it's just a short way of stating that: SC2 thanks to MBS will be more entertaining, demanding and even harder than SCBW because you will need much more focus and thought to actually macro during the battles (you won't have time to look into your base and you will have to add more units, no more: hell, I have to make more units, pity that big part of my army will die in the meantime.). It's a complete new level of micro/macro/strategy that some of you just don't seem to get a grasp on. Edit: Now please give me the counter-argument and show me how all of this is "noobifying" the game and closing the skill gap between pros and amateurs. The counter-argument is that if you're really good in sc:bw you either don't lose parts of your army for nothing while looking back into your base and managing it or you lose parts of your army because you timed it badly or handled things wrong or and now listen: you simply aren't that good. Talk about that gap once more. This argument has been repeated over and over again so why are there still people who claim not to have heard of it yet? | ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
On October 03 2007 07:53 ForAdun wrote: Because in the grand scheme of skill it isn't going to change who beats who, just like unit queues in SC didn't, and just like automine in war3 didn'tThe counter-argument is that if you're really good in sc:bw you either don't lose parts of your army for nothing while looking back into your base and managing it or you lose parts of your army because you timed it badly or handled things wrong or and now listen: you simply aren't that good. Talk about that gap once more. This argument has been repeated over and over again so why are there still people who claim not to have heard of it yet? | ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36388 Posts
On October 03 2007 07:10 uriel- wrote: Is this is sound of the whole point flying over your head? *Swoosh* uriel- Give others respect regardless of whether they agree with you or not. FA is a respected poster and from what I read in this thread, is taking you seriously and providing good responses. It is fine to be passionate about your argument but do not be insulting. ForAdun and uriel- Do not sidetrack threads with personal flame wars. | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
On October 03 2007 08:29 Hot_Bid wrote: ForAdun and uriel- Do not sidetrack threads with personal flame wars. Sorry, my bad. On October 03 2007 08:24 Zanno wrote: Because in the grand scheme of skill it isn't going to change who beats who, just like unit queues in SC didn't, and just like automine in war3 didn't Well that is actually what we're debating here, it is yet not clear who's right. Maybe it will be clear when SC2 came out but it makes sense to talk about pro's and con's beforehand. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 03 2007 06:49 orangedude wrote: If you ever run into Case C (WITH MBS), you'd have to suck pretty damn hard, so you lose by default Nah, if you don't have 5k when you are maxed out with 5 bases you don't have enough probes ;p | ||
|
iamke55
United States2806 Posts
On October 03 2007 07:49 Aphelion wrote: So I think you just admitted MBS would favor P and T over Z. Imbalance plz? I just realized another problem with MBS. Even if I grant your argument that good players won't use MBS, it remains the case that the macro of bad players would be helped significantly with MBS. In fact, the more you suck at macro and the more money you accumulate, the more MBS helps. What happened to retaining the gradient of skill between pros and noobs? You are deliberating creating a scenario where good players are barely helped by MBS, whereas bad players are helped immensely. If you can't beat someone just because they get an option to use slightly less clicks to make units, then you were never better than them in the first place. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On October 03 2007 07:28 Manit0u wrote: Has anyone read my previous post here? I have shown there that the "clickiness" of macro in SC2 won't differ all that much from SC1, the only difference will come when you have a shitload of production buildings because in SC2 you will be able to hotkey them all (note that you still have to press z,z,z or whatever for producing units and tabbing through the buildings to do so which leaves the same amount of clicks more or less - depends on unit mix) and won't have to look back into your base during the fights to manually select some buildings. And having this in mind we can conclude that: 1. The amount of mouse-clicks required to produce units remains almost unchanged. 2. The micro is more intensive. 3. You don't have to look back to your base during the fights (while still macroing). And from here it's just a short way of stating that: SC2 thanks to MBS will be more entertaining, demanding and even harder than SCBW because you will need much more focus and thought to actually macro during the battles (you won't have time to look into your base and you will have to add more units, no more: hell, I have to make more units, pity that big part of my army will die in the meantime.). It's a complete new level of micro/macro/strategy that some of you just don't seem to get a grasp on. Edit: Now please give me the counter-argument and show me how all of this is "noobifying" the game and closing the skill gap between pros and amateurs. i didn't respond to your post because i wasn't certain how accurate your version of the MBS is. Tabbing through buildings is very different than having access to all buildings' build menus simultaenously. However, if your version of MBS is used, i would be in support of it. It's still as demanding as Starcraft is regarding keyboard dexterity, but an improvement in accessibility. It does shrink the skill gap, but i don't believe in a bad way. It's more forgiving for newer players without detracting anything for expert players. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Horang2 Dota 2 1308Jaedong  836Larva 344Mini 228Shuttle 215Hyuk 189actioN 180Sharp  135firebathero 115Hyun 102[ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games Grubby4654 Gorgc2489 FrodaN1806 RotterdaM654 hiko652 Beastyqt471 B2W.Neo392 crisheroes311 ArmadaUGS156 DeMusliM114 QueenE97 KnowMe94 |
|
Korean StarCraft League
OSC
IPSL
Dewalt vs Bonyth
OSC
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
Patches Events
OSC
OSC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
