|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 03 2007 06:51 uriel- wrote:Show nested quote +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 was trying to make it clear that no, I don't think 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z is all there is to macro, but by adding MBS we ARE cutting down the PHYSICAL DEXTERITY required to macro smoothly by at the very least 20%, probably much, much more.
Show nested quote +
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, here's a quote from your original post:
What SC2 is doing is making macromanagement more strategy- and thinking- based instead of clicking based, and making micro even more demanding on handspeed than before.
Please explain how I'm twisting your words here when I state that I don't want more clicks microing and less clicks macroing (regardless of wether macro-theory stays the same or not).
I want to have to go back to my base. I want to have to click 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z. I don't want to spend more time microing just because there's no more macro clicks to be done. I couldn't give any less of a shit wether macro is conceptually more difficult or not if all it takes to get my 12 raxes working in a TvZ is clicking 4m.
Show nested quote +
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?
What is high-yield terrain? High-yield minerals? How terribly complicated.
We best automate some more shit lest my puny mind overheat.
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?
What the hell does zerg have to do with this? This is what you said in your original post:
Going to bring up the "micro based like WC3 argument"? It's the same resource model, same construction model, only rehashed with features that will add thinking and reduce clicking. WC3 macro might have little thinking, but SC2 macro is going to take as much experience and strategic sense if not more so than SC macro. There's a key difference here that no one seems to grasp. Gasp, I can't clickZclickZo8eru9f29rh2q43f626h492@@@@, I'm not macroing anymore!
You are the one making these bold claims about how SC2's macro is going to take more experience, more strategic sense and less clicking (I don't see the less clicking part as being a good thing, which apparently you didn't get in my initial reply to your post).
And I can't ask you - not blizzard - what exactly is going to make things strategically deeper?
Even if we for a minute assumes that you are right, blizzard will turn SC2 into the next Go or Chess, it will be insanely deep. How is this an argument for MBS exactly? I am all for depth, but this doesn't in any way mean the speed and hectic pace of SC1 should be sacrificed.
Are you really bloody surprised I'm a little bit doubtful about their ability to add in features that would truly replace the hectic pace of SC1s macro, when the main thing they've brought up when asked is BLINK.
A MICRO RELATED SPELL.
This doesn't worry you!?
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?
I don't like WATCHING them gather minerals.
I like TELLING them to gather minerals.
I like having to do shit when I play, I dislike having things done for me.
|
On October 03 2007 09:11 iamke55 wrote:
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.
Don't you think that's a somewhat strange reasoning? That would mean if someone with 200 IQ loses a race vs a horse... ah forget it 
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 03 2007 09:11 iamke55 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 07:49 Aphelion wrote:On October 03 2007 06:20 orangedude wrote:On October 03 2007 05:41 Hawk wrote:On October 03 2007 05:28 IdrA wrote:On October 03 2007 05:22 Klockan3 wrote:On October 03 2007 04:07 MyLostTemple wrote: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. 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. 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. 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.
There is luck in SC.
There is also the fact that while someone might be better than someone else, they are still going to lose a game every now and then. Reducing the skill caps on that which differentiates players skill levels is only going to lead to the better playing having less of an edge, something which really isn't desireable.
|
On October 03 2007 07:53 ForAdun wrote:Show nested quote +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?
I disagree with this. What you're referring to is the threshold, where before this threshold you're creating depth to the game by allowing for keyboard dexterity to impact the game in a significant way, and passed the threshold where you're creating arbitrary requirements to make those demands even greater.
No one says macro in this game is broken before you have 12 gateways. (since the only time your example is applicable is when you have more than 10 hotkeyed.) If macro in this game wasn't challenging enough before that mark, then players would have suggested taking out the ability to hotkey buildings at all - to force players to go back to their base, spend less time watching their army, and be faced with an even greater challenge of macro.
And it's at the line that i am drawing the threshold. If macro is not broken before the 10 hotkey mark, then allowing players to bind mutiple buildings to the same hotkey demanding the same amount of keyboard actions to produce units, is nothing but good.
This will again come down to preference. I personally have distaste for the shift in pro-map making where it's common to have maps that promote 10+ gateways relatively early in the game. I think at this point Starcraft has turned into too much of a macro game. On these maps it is no longer a 'balance' of micro/macro/strategy but with considerable more emphasis on macro. I could be wrong on this point, as this perspective has been formed after i have detached myself from playing competitively, however, the average game on Bifrost or Blitz X is a hell of a lot more entertaining than the average games found on Tau Cross or Longinus.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
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).
1. No it doesn't. Going back to your base and clicking 12 raxes requires a lot more clicks than 4m.
2. No it isn't, because you can just click 4m and be focus entirely on micro. More intensive as in more focused yes, more intensive as in more stressful or whatever you want to call it, no.
3. Which is a bad thing.
On October 03 2007 09:33 Mora wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 07:53 ForAdun wrote: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? I disagree with this. What you're referring to is the threshold, where before this threshold you're creating depth to the game by allowing for keyboard dexterity to impact the game in a significant way, and passed the threshold where you're creating arbitrary requirements to make those demands even greater. No one says macro in this game is broken before you have 12 gateways. (since the only time your example is applicable is when you have more than 10 hotkeyed.) If macro in this game wasn't challenging enough before that mark, then players would have suggested taking out the ability to hotkey buildings at all - to force players to go back to their base, spend less time watching their army, and be faced with an even greater challenge of macro. And it's at the line that i am drawing the threshold. If macro is not broken before the 10 hotkey mark, then allowing players to bind mutiple buildings to the same hotkey demanding the same amount of keyboard actions to produce units, is nothing but good. This will again come down to preference. I personally have distaste for the shift in pro-map making where it's common to have maps that promote 10+ gateways relatively early in the game. I think at this point Starcraft has turned into too much of a macro game. On these maps it is no longer a 'balance' of micro/macro/strategy but with considerable more emphasis on macro. I could be wrong on this point, as this perspective has been formed after i have detached myself from playing competitively, however, the average game on Bifrost or Blitz X is a hell of a lot more entertaining than the average games found on Tau Cross or Longinus.
Very few people hotkey 10 gateways so I'd say the threshold is lower than that.
Also, sure, nobody thinks macro is broken before 10 gates or whatever, but
1) 4m is 2 clicks.
4z5z6z7z8z9z0z is a lot more.
2) The impact MBS has will increase more and more the more gateways you have.
Why exactly do we want to make the lategame easier to play again?
|
I've played SC2.
SC was more fun.
Why? You had a lot more to do.
Stop trying to make a fast and fun paced game that isn't chess, chess.
What I believe blizzard is trying to do is make it a more army / harrass type of game to make it even more fun for audiences to watch.
But, there's no reason that can't happen even without MBS.
But, we'll see. ;p
|
My very own argument anti MBS is that I love the never-ending discussion between micro- and macro-gamers. I can't really say what is more important in sc:bw but I am sure that i don't want the discussion to end in SC2 just because of MBS (and automining, too, which could be even worse imo).
|
On October 03 2007 09:37 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +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). 1. No it doesn't. Going back to your base and clicking 12 raxes requires a lot more clicks than 4m. 2. No it isn't, because you can just click 4m and be focus entirely on micro. More intensive as in more focused yes, more intensive as in more stressful or whatever you want to call it, no. 3. Which is a bad thing. Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 09:33 Mora wrote:On October 03 2007 07:53 ForAdun wrote: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? I disagree with this. What you're referring to is the threshold, where before this threshold you're creating depth to the game by allowing for keyboard dexterity to impact the game in a significant way, and passed the threshold where you're creating arbitrary requirements to make those demands even greater. No one says macro in this game is broken before you have 12 gateways. (since the only time your example is applicable is when you have more than 10 hotkeyed.) If macro in this game wasn't challenging enough before that mark, then players would have suggested taking out the ability to hotkey buildings at all - to force players to go back to their base, spend less time watching their army, and be faced with an even greater challenge of macro. And it's at the line that i am drawing the threshold. If macro is not broken before the 10 hotkey mark, then allowing players to bind mutiple buildings to the same hotkey demanding the same amount of keyboard actions to produce units, is nothing but good. This will again come down to preference. I personally have distaste for the shift in pro-map making where it's common to have maps that promote 10+ gateways relatively early in the game. I think at this point Starcraft has turned into too much of a macro game. On these maps it is no longer a 'balance' of micro/macro/strategy but with considerable more emphasis on macro. I could be wrong on this point, as this perspective has been formed after i have detached myself from playing competitively, however, the average game on Bifrost or Blitz X is a hell of a lot more entertaining than the average games found on Tau Cross or Longinus. Very few people hotkey 10 gateways so I'd say the threshold is lower than that. Also, sure, nobody thinks macro is broken before 10 gates or whatever, but 1) 4m is 2 clicks. 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z is a lot more. 2) The impact MBS has will increase more and more the more gateways you have. Why exactly do we want to make the lategame easier to play again?
Like I said before:
WHAT IF YOU WOULD HAVE MBS BUT STILL HAVE TO CLICK AS MUCH AS WITH SBS? (Sure that earlier in the game it COULD be just 2m, but later on when you add add-ons to your buildings you would have to tab through them all which would be more like 2mTABcTABfTABmTAB... Toss case: 2zCLICKzCLICKzCLICKzCLICK).
That's what I was saying and so far it seems that only Mora understands my reasoning.
People, instead of arguing about MBS perhaps we should do the following:
1. Ask someone who has actually played SC2 (Testie?) to tell us how EXACTLY MBS works in SC2.
2. Decide what points we like there and what we don't like.
3. Get some constructive ideas on the way the thing could be improved (like my view on this subject) so it would satisfy more people (including hardcore fans).
Why so many of you are just bitching instead of finding something positive in this game? It's being released at least 10 years after the original so how the hell can you bitch about things getting changed?
|
The clicking part isn't the hardest. Anyone can go 5dtabdtabdtabdtabdtabdtabd without thinking or even realizing it after a few hours of training.
Its the part about having to tear yourself from your units consciously and going back to base to macro thats important.
|
On October 02 2007 22:08 FrozenArbiter wrote:
I was trying to make it clear that no, I don't think 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z is all there is to macro, but by adding MBS we ARE cutting down the PHYSICAL DEXTERITY required to macro smoothly by at the very least 20%, probably much, much more.
And my whole point is based on the fact that SC2, which is surprisingly NOT SC1, is going to detract the need of physical dexterity for macro and put it onto micro. That's what one can infer based on the features that we know, of Blizzard wanting macromanagement to be geared towards strategic sense, and micromanagement to be geared towards hand speed. Which makes sense to me.
OK, here's a quote from your original post: Show nested quote +What SC2 is doing is making macromanagement more strategy- and thinking- based instead of clicking based, and making micro even more demanding on handspeed than before. Please explain how I'm twisting your words here when I state that I don't want more clicks microing and less clicks macroing (regardless of wether macro-theory stays the same or not).
Because you said "you don't want MORE MICRO and LESS MACRO". That is very distinct from MORE CLICKS to micro and LESS CLICKS to macro, which is what I meant, and what you did not express. When I explicitly stated I was referring to the shift in hand dexterity importance among the two, you equated it to me saying there will be more micro and less macro, hence twisting my words.
I want to have to go back to my base. I want to have to click 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z. I don't want to spend more time microing just because there's no more macro clicks to be done. I couldn't give any less of a shit wether macro is conceptually more difficult or not if all it takes to get my 12 raxes working in a TvZ is clicking 4m.
If you don't want change and perhaps progress, Starcraft isn't going away. Perhaps half the world will agree with you and stick to Starcraft, perhaps you will find yourself in the niche group of hardcore Starcraft fans who share your opinion, but a small group of players wanting to 4z5z6z8wn9yryf9!@@@ isn't going to change the overwhelming majority of players wanting a better interface. Perhaps Blizzard will make it an option for "hardcore" communities, perhaps there will be a "hardcore" game setting just for players such as yourself. But forcefully rejecting a concept that will at the very least open the game up to more players, and at the very worst detract ONE part of macro of the huge game that is Starcraft is slightly over the top.
What is high-yield terrain? High-yield minerals? How terribly complicated.
We best automate some more shit lest my puny mind overheat.
Well, when you run out of points, is this what you resort to? At least my sarcasm is loaded with content. High-yield resources is an addition to the existing Starcraft resource model, complicating it. Just as how double-gas expansions, double-gas mains, baekmagoji-style mains are already causing timings and builds to change, so will well placed high-yield resources in mapmaking. Even if Blizzard stopped working on SC2 macro right now, this is still something SC1 does not have, making it more complicated, no matter how low of a degree you want to make it look like. Hence me saying that SC2's macro is going to take at least the same level of strategic thinking, if not more so. Why not be optimistic and believe that Blizzard is able to add OTHER resource and macro related features so that we have more things to consider outside expansion timing?
What the hell does zerg have to do with this?
Because you are dismissing my points based on the "no evidence" clause. If you require evidence for everything, I can simply say Zergs will have nothing outside of Zerglings, Mutalisks and Nydus Wurms because nothing has been said on the contrary. Similarly, you are saying that Blizzard is not going to include features that can demand micro and macro because "they haven't said anything about it". If we follow this clause, all discussion can stop because there's "no evidence".
This is what you said in your original post: Show nested quote +Going to bring up the "micro based like WC3 argument"? It's the same resource model, same construction model, only rehashed with features that will add thinking and reduce clicking. WC3 macro might have little thinking, but SC2 macro is going to take as much experience and strategic sense if not more so than SC macro. There's a key difference here that no one seems to grasp. Gasp, I can't clickZclickZo8eru9f29rh2q43f626h492@@@@, I'm not macroing anymore! You are the one making these bold claims about how SC2's macro is going to take more experience, more strategic sense and less clicking (I don't see the less clicking part as being a good thing, which apparently you didn't get in my initial reply to your post). And I can't ask you - not blizzard - what exactly is going to make things strategically deeper?
As I have already explained, those are not bold claims. Let's start from a purely logical standpoint. Starcraft is A, and Starcraft 2 is currently A + B with B being high-yield resources. Even if Blizzard stops developing the game and does not add ANYTHING to the Starcraft 2 macro model, it's still going to be more complicated than Starcraft because it's the exact same thing plus more. Let's continue from a practical standpoint. Blizzard listens, and Blizzard are certainly capable of adding features that add to the thinking requirements of resource management. And EVEN IF THEY DID NOT, Starcraft 2 macro is still going to be more complicated. As for less clicking, well that's obvious.
Even if we for a minute assumes that you are right, blizzard will turn SC2 into the next Go or Chess, it will be insanely deep. How is this an argument for MBS exactly? I am all for depth, but this doesn't in any way mean the speed and hectic pace of SC1 should be sacrificed.
Are you really bloody surprised I'm a little bit doubtful about their ability to add in features that would truly replace the hectic pace of SC1s macro, when the main thing they've brought up when asked is BLINK.
A MICRO RELATED SPELL.
This doesn't worry you!?
I have never exactly been arguing "for" MBS, per se. I'm fine either way with it being in or out, but I'm disagreeing with the people who attack MBS with hyperbole and bias stemming from their experiences with SC1. If MBS lowers handspeed requirements from macro, high-APM players are just going to put the APM (Real Time) component of their play to micro while keeping their (Strategy) component in macro. Speed is not going to be sacrificed, only reallocated away from macro, and that is only the tentative conclusion based on what we have. The only argument left at this point against this "I prefer spreading my handspeed between macro and micro", in which case Starcraft 2 might not be the game for you.
Of course, all this is based on what we have. Who knows if Blizzard doesn't bring in something for macro? As for them not responding to it with anything but Blink...the game's likely a year, perhaps years away from finalization and release. If you are unwilling to keep an open mind about what they can do, and limit all discussions to what we know for sure, than once again all discussion should stop because we know nothing.
I don't like WATCHING them gather minerals.
I like TELLING them to gather minerals.
I like having to do shit when I play, I dislike having things done for me.
Why have rally points? I like to tell my units to move to where I want them to when they pop out of the Factory. Why have waypoints? There's nothing wrong with cutting back to that unit and giving it the next command after my current one is done. Why do my units attack enemies on sight automatically? If I see the enemy within range, is it that hard to command my units to attack the enemies?
You realize that if Starcraft 1 didn't have rally points, waypoints, stances or whatever the hell interface features, people are still going to find ways to play it right and play beautiful games, just different from what we know. But Starcraft 1 HAS rally points, waypoints, and stances, and people are using them to play beautiful games. When MBS comes around, assuming it is compulsory, people are still going to use them to play beautiful games, stunning in ways different from a game without MBS. If Starcraft 1 did not have rally points and such and SC2 introduced them, is it going to be as heated a discussion? Those definitely make the game far easier compared to one without. This is evolution, as inevitable as it gets. And if you reject it, you will simply have to settle with the option of sticking to what you like while everyone else moves on. Is there something so wrong with everyone else moving on?
*An end-note to our dear TL moderators. The post I was PMed for was quite clearly addressed to a certain ForAdun (or something like that), not FrozenArbiter (but then they are both FAs, so hell if I know). As FrozenArbiter is clearly trying to have an intelligent discussion, I have no reason to insult him. Not so much the other FA, who came in with some random post that served no purpose, and then attacked my command of the English language.
Then again, if something this obvious gets misinterpreted, I guess saying this won't do much. Just getting something out of my system, I guess.
|
You are having a good point uriel, e.g. comparing MBS to ralley points makes sense in my opinion. Ralley points are useful to win seconds to focuse more on the micro management, especially useful for rushes. MBS could do exactly the same.
My question now would be how far we can go transferring seconds from macro to micro by using MBS + automining? How many seconds are too much?
A simple question that is not so easy to answer.
Edit: FA is probably FrozenArbiter, I am not "respected" like him since I am new to this forum.
And I am sorry if you took my response to the other post as an attack, it was meant to prove you wrong, not to make you look stupid or dunno.
|
- MBS will reduce the physical dexterity required for certain SC1 parts of certain SC1 matchups.
- SC2 may require more or less dexterity than SC1, even with MBS.
- SC2 will have entirely new matchups, and if they are ever balanced, it will be essentially "from scratch." I.E. they could all play like ZvZ, for all we know (and honestly we have more reason to expect that than you think).
- Said matchups may require more dexterity or less, at various times, even with MBS.
- Blizzard is going to include MBS in SC2.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 03 2007 15:17 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 09:37 FrozenArbiter wrote: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). 1. No it doesn't. Going back to your base and clicking 12 raxes requires a lot more clicks than 4m. 2. No it isn't, because you can just click 4m and be focus entirely on micro. More intensive as in more focused yes, more intensive as in more stressful or whatever you want to call it, no. 3. Which is a bad thing. On October 03 2007 09:33 Mora wrote:On October 03 2007 07:53 ForAdun wrote: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? I disagree with this. What you're referring to is the threshold, where before this threshold you're creating depth to the game by allowing for keyboard dexterity to impact the game in a significant way, and passed the threshold where you're creating arbitrary requirements to make those demands even greater. No one says macro in this game is broken before you have 12 gateways. (since the only time your example is applicable is when you have more than 10 hotkeyed.) If macro in this game wasn't challenging enough before that mark, then players would have suggested taking out the ability to hotkey buildings at all - to force players to go back to their base, spend less time watching their army, and be faced with an even greater challenge of macro. And it's at the line that i am drawing the threshold. If macro is not broken before the 10 hotkey mark, then allowing players to bind mutiple buildings to the same hotkey demanding the same amount of keyboard actions to produce units, is nothing but good. This will again come down to preference. I personally have distaste for the shift in pro-map making where it's common to have maps that promote 10+ gateways relatively early in the game. I think at this point Starcraft has turned into too much of a macro game. On these maps it is no longer a 'balance' of micro/macro/strategy but with considerable more emphasis on macro. I could be wrong on this point, as this perspective has been formed after i have detached myself from playing competitively, however, the average game on Bifrost or Blitz X is a hell of a lot more entertaining than the average games found on Tau Cross or Longinus. Very few people hotkey 10 gateways so I'd say the threshold is lower than that. Also, sure, nobody thinks macro is broken before 10 gates or whatever, but 1) 4m is 2 clicks. 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z is a lot more. 2) The impact MBS has will increase more and more the more gateways you have. Why exactly do we want to make the lategame easier to play again? Like I said before: WHAT IF YOU WOULD HAVE MBS BUT STILL HAVE TO CLICK AS MUCH AS WITH SBS? (Sure that earlier in the game it COULD be just 2m, but later on when you add add-ons to your buildings you would have to tab through them all which would be more like 2mTABcTABfTABmTAB... Toss case: 2zCLICKzCLICKzCLICKzCLICK). That's what I was saying and so far it seems that only Mora understands my reasoning. People, instead of arguing about MBS perhaps we should do the following: 1. Ask someone who has actually played SC2 (Testie?) to tell us how EXACTLY MBS works in SC2. 2. Decide what points we like there and what we don't like. 3. Get some constructive ideas on the way the thing could be improved (like my view on this subject) so it would satisfy more people (including hardcore fans). Why so many of you are just bitching instead of finding something positive in this game? It's being released at least 10 years after the original so how the hell can you bitch about things getting changed?
Later in the game is when MBS will have MORE of an effect, ok so the terran buildings have 2 different addons:
4m(10 rax with the dual unit production addon) 5c (2 rax with the tech addon)
10 raxes made marines, 2 raxes made medics.
I guess your toss example is for warpgates since they dont have any addons? Well, I'm sure most of the time the macro will look like this:
4z5d (*insert stalker/immortal hotkey*).
I have never exactly been arguing "for" MBS, per se. I'm fine either way with it being in or out, but I'm disagreeing with the people who attack MBS with hyperbole and bias stemming from their experiences with SC1. If MBS lowers handspeed requirements from macro, high-APM players are just going to put the APM (Real Time) component of their play to micro while keeping their (Strategy) component in macro. Speed is not going to be sacrificed, only reallocated away from macro, and that is only the tentative conclusion based on what we have. The only argument left at this point against this "I prefer spreading my handspeed between macro and micro", in which case Starcraft 2 might not be the game for you.
Of course, all this is based on what we have. Who knows if Blizzard doesn't bring in something for macro? As for them not responding to it with anything but Blink...the game's likely a year, perhaps years away from finalization and release. If you are unwilling to keep an open mind about what they can do, and limit all discussions to what we know for sure, than once again all discussion should stop because we know nothing.
People telling me "SC2 might not be the game for me" tilts the hell out of me.
Starcraft II is the sequel to Starcraft 1. Starcraft 2 is SUPPOSED to be the game for me, so if it changes the macro/micro balance (physical balance) then me being upset about it is a pretty natural reaction I would say.
And I'm worried about them mentioning blink because it makes it sound like they don't really understand the issue. Look, they mention blink - a micro aspect - as a replacement for a lot of lost macro..
Yeah, maybe they have something else planned, but the fact that they even mention blink is worrying. If they realized blink isn't a true replacement then why would they mention it?
Competitive SC1 will die. There is no other game that has the physical balance between time spent macroing/microing, so if SC2 doesn't preserve it, it will be NOWHERE.
If you look at the posts by people who played at blizzcon they all say the game is easier/less intense so far. Sure, they played bad opponents but it's a bad sign.
Hungry now, post more later I guess-.-
|
I think the fact that MBS will lower handspeed requirements for macro is pretty much set in stone. If SC2 was just SC1 with MBS, then it would be an easier and less intense game. There's really no point arguing that.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
And my whole point is based on the fact that SC2, which is surprisingly NOT SC1, is going to detract the need of physical dexterity for macro and put it onto micro. That's what one can infer based on the features that we know, of Blizzard wanting macromanagement to be geared towards strategic sense, and micromanagement to be geared towards hand speed. Which makes sense to me.
And I hate this. They can't claim to stick to their SC1 roots and still go down this route..
Well, when you run out of points, is this what you resort to? At least my sarcasm is loaded with content. High-yield resources is an addition to the existing Starcraft resource model, complicating it. Just as how double-gas expansions, double-gas mains, baekmagoji-style mains are already causing timings and builds to change, so will well placed high-yield resources in mapmaking. Even if Blizzard stopped working on SC2 macro right now, this is still something SC1 does not have, making it more complicated, no matter how low of a degree you want to make it look like. Hence me saying that SC2's macro is going to take at least the same level of strategic thinking, if not more so. Why not be optimistic and believe that Blizzard is able to add OTHER resource and macro related features so that we have more things to consider outside expansion timing?
My point is that these are things that I'm perfectly capable of handling without MBS. The high-yield resources, as you yourself pointed out, are no different from double gas mains, minerals with less than 1500 units in them and so on.
As I have already explained, those are not bold claims. Let's start from a purely logical standpoint. Starcraft is A, and Starcraft 2 is currently A + B with B being high-yield resources. Even if Blizzard stops developing the game and does not add ANYTHING to the Starcraft 2 macro model, it's still going to be more complicated than Starcraft because it's the exact same thing plus more. Let's continue from a practical standpoint. Blizzard listens, and Blizzard are certainly capable of adding features that add to the thinking requirements of resource management. And EVEN IF THEY DID NOT, Starcraft 2 macro is still going to be more complicated. As for less clicking, well that's obvious.
Insignificantly more complicated theory wise, significantly easier execution-wise.
Because you said "you don't want MORE MICRO and LESS MACRO". That is very distinct from MORE CLICKS to micro and LESS CLICKS to macro, which is what I meant, and what you did not express. When I explicitly stated I was referring to the shift in hand dexterity importance among the two, you equated it to me saying there will be more micro and less macro, hence twisting my words.
I think those are one and the same. I consider the execution of macro to be part of macro, so reducing that (via MBS) leads to less macro even if its impact remains the same, in my opinion.
Why have rally points? I like to tell my units to move to where I want them to when they pop out of the Factory. Why have waypoints? There's nothing wrong with cutting back to that unit and giving it the next command after my current one is done. Why do my units attack enemies on sight automatically? If I see the enemy within range, is it that hard to command my units to attack the enemies?
You realize that if Starcraft 1 didn't have rally points, waypoints, stances or whatever the hell interface features, people are still going to find ways to play it right and play beautiful games, just different from what we know. But Starcraft 1 HAS rally points, waypoints, and stances, and people are using them to play beautiful games. When MBS comes around, assuming it is compulsory, people are still going to use them to play beautiful games, stunning in ways different from a game without MBS. If Starcraft 1 did not have rally points and such and SC2 introduced them, is it going to be as heated a discussion? Those definitely make the game far easier compared to one without. This is evolution, as inevitable as it gets. And if you reject it, you will simply have to settle with the option of sticking to what you like while everyone else moves on. Is there something so wrong with everyone else moving on?
Starcraft doesn't have 'stances'..
And no, I wouldn't oppose rally points because the impact it has is very different from the impact MBS has.
If you notice, I've said multiple times that I'm fine with unlimited unit selection caps. I'm not anti-progress, I'm anti-progress only when I believe it hurts the game.
|
Stegosaur
Netherlands1231 Posts
I'm *not* going to get into an argument about MBS but I want to point out:
On October 03 2007 21:47 lugggy wrote:
- Blizzard is going to include MBS in SC2.
Why the SHIT do people keep repeating this? Are you gloating? Do you feel victorious over the people who oppose it so you need to bring it up? Is there some kind of official statement from Browder or whoever that they will, without a doubt, incorporate MBS?
What the hell is the point of bringing this up in a 300-post thread, besides trying to piss people off. Obviously there's discussion to be had here (otherwise there wouldn't be 2 threads in the 'active thread' part spanning over 1000 posts on the subject) and you're not going to change it by saying 'Lolz Blizzard will put it in stop complaining~!'.
|
I think Blizzard has stated that they will remove features like MBS if they feel it's bad for the game.
And that is quite obvious. And as soon as the game goes into beta MBS will be removed, if not earlier. The more Blizzard will find out about the effect of MBS the more they will realize it's bad.
|
I won't buy it without MBS.
WC3 doesn't need MBS, SC does.
|
On October 03 2007 21:50 FrozenArbiter wrote:
People telling me "SC2 might not be the game for me" tilts the hell out of me.
Starcraft II is the sequel to Starcraft 1. Starcraft 2 is SUPPOSED to be the game for me, so if it changes the macro/micro balance (physical balance) then me being upset about it is a pretty natural reaction I would say.
People who liked warcraft 2 probably plays starcraft today, not warcraft 3. Just beacuse it got the same name dont mean that it will pertain to the same audience. I know that blizzard said that they will make starcraft 2 pertain to th starcraft audience, but if you look at it even with mbs it will still be better than any other game for starraft fans except starcraft for those that cant live wo mbs.
On October 03 2007 23:50 Stegosaur wrote:
Is there some kind of official statement from Browder or whoever that they will, without a doubt, incorporate MBS?
Not exactly but he (And all blizzard representatives) have always talked as if its the most natural thing in the world to keep it in. Everything else they state very vagely and said "Remember that nothings final" all the time, but on mbs they have always said a straight "Yes, it will be in" and have never even hinted at it being under consideration.
|
even monkeys could figure out that MBS is bad for sc2... im sorry to all you ppl who want mbs.. but ur IQ is lower then monkeys ~ surely blizzard has a bannana amoung them.. to figure this out. :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
