|
i think the piano/organ analogy might be able to reconcile the two sides if taken in light of liquid`drone's post.
the piano certainly strikes me as a more user-friendly interface than the organ and seems preferable in regard to producing the most aesthetically pleasing music given the constraint of human ability. but the piano/organ analogy breaks down because it has a different focus than starcraft, which is a competitive game, and is more interested in its competitiveness than in making a 'cool replay.' the korean competitive leagues are much closer to the essence of the game than this year's pimpest plays.
most of the pro-MBS side seems to be thinking in terms of the piano and the organ, and most of of the anti-MBS side seems to be thinking in terms of the skiier and poles in the ground.
both sides have merit, but the skiier and the poles are more the essence of starcraft than flashy visuals or the replay that comes out of a game. it's absolutely essential that starcraft 2 be a great competitive game like starcraft. it's only slightly important that a particular aspect of the UI be more user-friendly. sacrificing SC2's competitiveness for an improvement in UI doesn't make any sense, and as of yet, there has not been a post that suggests a realistic way of preserving starcraft's ideal competitive structure while putting MBS and automining in SC2.
just to be clear, i haven't ignored any of the explanations about how MBS and automining might not interfere with SC2's competitiveness. the sort of semi-MBS that someone suggested earlier in the thread - where multiple buildings could be selected but each had to be tabbed through individually in order to create units - that sort of MBS seems like a reasonable middle of the road solution in trying to preserve competitiveness, but i'm not sure that a middle of the road solution makes much sense.
the other accounts of how MBS "won't really make macro easier" have been ridiculously vague or have lacked the imagination to see how MBS would potentially be used. it's also somewhat ridiculous to suggest that more micro is a serious answer, given that micro only takes place during battles, which can't be happening all the time since there's a limited number of resources and units. don't be fooled into thinking that an improvement in the ease of macro is going to mean that there are more continuous battles or even that there will be more micro in those battles. bigger battles are more about positioning and formation than about 'micro' in the classic sense because the logistics of the thing are that you aren't going to be able to micromanage 50+ units taking and doing enormous amounts of damage in the same sense that you can micro a small group of marines against zerglings.
if anything you might find that MBS makes big battle control easier because you can easily devote most of your time to observing your army and moving it about, maintaining a perfect formation against the enemy. most of what prevents non-pros from having pro's great reaction time and army position is not a lack of knowledge about to handle a situation - it's usually that the non-pro simply has to devote too much time to other things (e.g. macro), otherwise he'll fall behind economically and his army will be overwhelmed. as a result, the non-pro (or simply the inferior multitasker) usually suffers from poor army position and reaction time and is at a disadvantage in big fights.
|
On October 04 2007 05:28 InRaged wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 03:51 1sd2sd3sd wrote:
The major problem I think that everyone sees is the fact that you are taking this system of mechanics and purposely declining it just to welcome new faces. This would be like removing a great deal of keys from a piano in order to get more people interested in playing it. Yes, you might attract more people to learn since it will be easier to get good at but think of all the tones you will be leaving out.
You will be sacrificing potential for short term success. Piano pedals weren't intended from the beginning and there are no piano players who don't use pedals. Sustain Pedal (damper pedal) and Sostenuto pedal - thanks to these pedals you can play simple but beautiful passages with one finger and more complicated using only one hand. At the same time pianists get the way to play compositions that without these pedals would never exist. There is even no need to bring piano comparison. Look at rally points. Without them you had to go back to the base every time units were completed and that required multitasking and timing. Rally points didn't make game worser but quite otherwise and that's exactly how MBS could work. That's my opinion. You and others can disagree, that's fine. But the Real Problem is some people don't think that's fine. They think the only valid opinion is theirs or even think that their guess-work aren't opinion but facts. They think just through discussion and by calling noobs those who disagree they can force their opinion on someone and that's what's sad. Show nested quote +Dont come with analogies people, even if you think that just your analogy is ubersmart and everyone will get it. exactly Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 05:15 Lz wrote:
stop trying to Newbiefie SC2 with MBS/automine.. its pointless this isnt WC3 i dont want to just micro.. i want to macro and 4z 5d is not what i call macro'ing --a WE ALL GET YOUR OPINION ALREADY
I'm not trying to force my opinion I am just giving the best one I can; my own. I usually do not argue with things unless my beliefs are pretty firm on the topic. However I am also very open minded and not arrogant enough to plow through others while deep down I know I am wrong. In this case I believe I am right. If I felt that MBS would help this game I would most certainly say so. In fact I have said that it will most likely attract more players but at the cost of taking out a huge part of the game. I hate it when people only look at their side of the argument and convince themselves that they are right without even taking the time to look at the other side. Analogies are not bad and I am not completely sure why everyone is getting upset about them. They cannot be proven of course (yet) but the differences can be estimated by those of us who have been playing brood war a long time. Sure adding a circle to rally each time you clicked the production building was fine. It didn't really change the game play. By implementing MBS you are making the game much more simple. It has been argued that 4sd5sd6sd4r5r6r7sz8sm1a2a3a etc are just clicks on the keyboard but those clicks on the keyboard define a portion of skill and by taking them away you are taking away skill. I said it in my previous post that if you want to play like that its fine (who am I to tell you you can't?) but I would at least like an option that allows you to turn it on or off before the start of the game so that the more than casual players can keep their high level of play intact.
EDIT: When I say I believe I am right I am referring that I think it would be a better game without MBS. I do not mean it will attract more people without MBS.
|
On October 04 2007 05:41 Failsafe wrote:
the other accounts of how MBS "won't really make macro easier" have been ridiculously vague or have lacked the imagination to see how MBS would potentially be used. it's also somewhat ridiculous to suggest that more micro is a serious answer, given that micro only takes place during battles, which can't be happening all the time since there's a limited number of resources and units. don't be fooled into thinking that an improvement in the ease of macro is going to mean that there are more continuous battles or even that there will be more micro in those battles. bigger battles are more about positioning and formation than about 'micro' in the classic sense because the logistics of the thing are that you aren't going to be able to micromanage 50+ units taking and doing enormous amounts of damage in the same sense that you can micro a small group of marines against zerglings.
Well, microing 50 units perfectly is totally impossible wich is why its a great skill factor. Then if armies are more diverse due to more forethought on blizzards part when designing the factions you will have an army of maybe 8 types of units with 7 units of each type, that will be a very very hard beast to micro and skill can shine a lot in such situations.
And you can always micro, just not in the early game. As soon as you get flyers and such units that can harrass wo taking losses you will constantly micro them as long as you got nothing else to do, while at the same time microing your army to chase away your enemies harrassing units.
Also when harrassing is not important anymore due to armies to large and towers everywere you have to micro army positions all the time since as you know in starcraft having the right formation on your army compared to your opponents make a huge difference, always trying to keep the rock from the paper and on the scissor or even on the paper if the situation is in your favor.
But anyway, as long as theres units wich can hurt your opponents without losses as long as you micro them there will always be things to do and if you dont got enough just build more such units.
Edit: And i can see that its possible that the skill requirements of the game will go down, but i believe that its possibel that it goes the other way and the game gets harder in some ways and even overall eventhough parts of the skill of macroclicks are irreplaceable.
|
On October 04 2007 06:01 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 05:41 Failsafe wrote:
the other accounts of how MBS "won't really make macro easier" have been ridiculously vague or have lacked the imagination to see how MBS would potentially be used. it's also somewhat ridiculous to suggest that more micro is a serious answer, given that micro only takes place during battles, which can't be happening all the time since there's a limited number of resources and units. don't be fooled into thinking that an improvement in the ease of macro is going to mean that there are more continuous battles or even that there will be more micro in those battles. bigger battles are more about positioning and formation than about 'micro' in the classic sense because the logistics of the thing are that you aren't going to be able to micromanage 50+ units taking and doing enormous amounts of damage in the same sense that you can micro a small group of marines against zerglings.
Well, microing 50 units perfectly is totally impossible wich is why its a great skill factor. Then if armies are more diverse due to more forethought on blizzards part when designing the factions you will have an army of maybe 8 types of units with 7 units of each type, that will be a very very hard beast to micro and skill can shine a lot in such situations. And you can always micro, just not in the early game. As soon as you get flyers and such units that can harrass wo taking losses you will constantly micro them as long as you got nothing else to do, while at the same time microing your army to chase away your enemies harrassing units.* Also when harrassing is not important anymore due to armies to large and towers everywere you have to micro army positions all the time since as you know in starcraft having the right formation on your army compared to your opponents make a huge difference, always trying to keep the rock from the paper and on the scissor or even on the paper if the situation is in your favor. But anyway, as long as theres units wich can hurt your opponents without losses as long as you micro them there will always be things to do and if you dont got enough just build more such units. Edit: And i can see that its possible that the skill requirements of the game will go down, but i believe that its possibel that it goes the other way and the game gets harder in some ways and even overall eventhough parts of the skill of macroclicks are irreplaceable.
*once more: Why do you think everyone likes that? I don't. Many many others don't. Respect the macro gamers!
|
On October 04 2007 06:01 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 05:41 Failsafe wrote:
the other accounts of how MBS "won't really make macro easier" have been ridiculously vague or have lacked the imagination to see how MBS would potentially be used. it's also somewhat ridiculous to suggest that more micro is a serious answer, given that micro only takes place during battles, which can't be happening all the time since there's a limited number of resources and units. don't be fooled into thinking that an improvement in the ease of macro is going to mean that there are more continuous battles or even that there will be more micro in those battles. bigger battles are more about positioning and formation than about 'micro' in the classic sense because the logistics of the thing are that you aren't going to be able to micromanage 50+ units taking and doing enormous amounts of damage in the same sense that you can micro a small group of marines against zerglings.
Well, microing 50 units perfectly is totally impossible wich is why its a great skill factor. Then if armies are more diverse due to more forethought on blizzards part when designing the factions you will have an army of maybe 8 types of units with 7 units of each type, that will be a very very hard beast to micro and skill can shine a lot in such situations. And you can always micro, just not in the early game. As soon as you get flyers and such units that can harrass wo taking losses you will constantly micro them as long as you got nothing else to do, while at the same time microing your army to chase away your enemies harrassing units. Also when harrassing is not important anymore due to armies to large and towers everywere you have to micro army positions all the time since as you know in starcraft having the right formation on your army compared to your opponents make a huge difference, always trying to keep the rock from the paper and on the scissor or even on the paper if the situation is in your favor. But anyway, as long as theres units wich can hurt your opponents without losses as long as you micro them there will always be things to do and if you dont got enough just build more such units. Edit: And i can see that its possible that the skill requirements of the game will go down, but i believe that its possibel that it goes the other way and the game gets harder in some ways and even overall eventhough parts of the skill of macroclicks are irreplaceable.
your post makes me think that you've got some weird hybrid of starcraft and warcraft III in your head and you're having a hard time separating the two.
|
On October 04 2007 05:41 Failsafe wrote:
i think the piano/organ analogy might be able to reconcile the two sides if taken in light of liquid`drone's post.
the piano certainly strikes me as a more user-friendly interface than the organ and seems preferable in regard to producing the most aesthetically pleasing music given the constraint of human ability. but the piano/organ analogy breaks down because it has a different focus than starcraft, which is a competitive game, and is more interested in its competitiveness than in making a 'cool replay.' the korean competitive leagues are much closer to the essence of the game than this year's pimpest plays.
most of the pro-MBS side seems to be thinking in terms of the piano and the organ, and most of of the anti-MBS side seems to be thinking in terms of the skiier and poles in the ground.
both sides have merit, but the skiier and the poles are more the essence of starcraft than flashy visuals or the replay that comes out of a game.
That's sophism and sorry I have no idea how to explain something to someone who uses that.
|
On October 04 2007 06:26 Failsafe wrote:
your post makes me think that you've got some weird hybrid of starcraft and warcraft III in your head and you're having a hard time separating the two.
So all the towers ive seen in sc competetive play in mid/lategame are only illusions?
And starcraft got rock/paper scissor gameplay, just like all strategy games. Sure it isnt as defined as for example age of empires, but its certainly is there. And the rps of starcraft is generally stronger than the rps of warcraft 3 due to heroes being a class of their own.
|
inraged, you've been bitching about people using analogies because your own posts are so trivial as to be completely ignored. analogies are more useful than you understand. they're not just a persuasive rally tool. and anyway why bother to post yet another trivial complaint. do you even understand what sophism means?
|
On October 04 2007 06:44 Failsafe wrote:
you've been bitching about people using analogies because your own posts are so trivial as be completely ignored. why bother to post yet another trivial complaint?
I hope that was directed towards Inrage.
|
yeah, coincidence of timings. anyway, i apologize for being trite in my response to you, klockan, but i don't think that flying unit harassment is a sufficiently general example, or that rock paper scissors combat exists in starcraft the way you were describing. war3, however, does have exactly that style of combat, and it's openly advertised with armor types and damage types, and so when you said 'towers' i assumed that you were more of a warcraft3 player than a starcraft player since starcraft doesn't have towers.
|
On October 04 2007 06:49 Failsafe wrote:
yeah, coincidence of timings. anyway, i apologize for being trite in my response to you, klockan, but i don't think that flying unit harassment is a sufficiently general example, or that rock paper scissors combat exists in starcraft the way you were describing. war3, however, does have exactly that style of combat, and it's openly advertised with armor types and damage types, and so when you said 'towers' i assumed that you were more of a warcraft3 player than a starcraft player since starcraft doesn't have towers.
Np then, but ive played most rts games and towers seem to be the general term for buildings that can shoot.
Also i know that a lot of players here dont want micro to replace macro, wich i can understand. However the skill will still be there since micro can be built on almost infinitely and if blizzard just wants they can make harrasing units wich are able to do damage wo taking damage if used right with micro. And it seems like they have gone that way, if you look, reapers are great harrasers if they have stim as its said on their webbsite, blinking stalkers can harras good, the new light anti ground air units will also be perfect harrasers.
Macro actions->Micro actions is what happens with mbs. It changes the skill set needed quite a large bit but it doesnt have to reduce the skill much or even at all depending on how they handle it.
All i want to say is that you will still have the most famous pro's wich will dominate since the skill spectrum will still be large enough. Im very confident that sc2 can survive as a competetive game with mbs, but the pro's will have a bit different skillsets wich isnt that strange since sc2 is a new game.
And eventhough sc2 might not be sc enough for some peopels liking, from what weve seen it will still be the game that is closest to starcraft in terms of how it plays and starcraft is also closest to it in terms of how they play. As such its name does fit.
And ive said it before, maybe youve already started on it, but you as a group should write a comprehensive letter to blizzard with the concerns about this. Maybe ask karune if they are willing to change mbs in the next QnA?
|
On October 04 2007 06:44 Failsafe wrote:
inraged, you've been bitching about people using analogies because your own posts are so trivial as be completely ignored.
what?
do you even understand what sophism means? + Show Spoiler +On October 04 2007 05:41 Failsafe wrote:
i think the piano/organ analogy might be able to reconcile the two sides if taken in light of liquid`drone's post.
the piano certainly strikes me as a more user-friendly interface than the organ and seems preferable in regard to producing the most aesthetically pleasing music given the constraint of human ability. but the piano/organ analogy breaks down because it has a different focus than starcraft, which is a competitive game, and is more interested in its competitiveness than in making a 'cool replay.' the korean competitive leagues are much closer to the essence of the game than this year's pimpest plays.
most of the pro-MBS side seems to be thinking in terms of the piano and the organ, and most of of the anti-MBS side seems to be thinking in terms of the skiier and poles in the ground.
both sides have merit, but the skiier and the poles are more the essence of starcraft than flashy visuals or the replay that comes out of a game.
step-by-step
-Piano is about music, skiing is about sport and competition
-Daigomi made piano/organ analogy and he's pro-MBS (I'm sure he did that cause of 1sd2sd3sd example, who's btw anti-MBS) therefore most pro-MBS think in terms of music.
-Liquid`Drone made skiing analogy and he's anti-MBS therefore anti-MBS mostly care about competition.
-Music is about beauty therefore pro-mbs care about "cool replays"!
-Starcraft is about competition hence anti-mbs crowd has more validity
Should I point exactly in what steps above not just lack of logic but complete absence of any?
|
what game do u watch that has MBS in it.. with cool replays?? i tryed watching wc3 replays before.. but it was kinda like watching a 1v1 starcraft match vs. the computer >_<
dont get me wrong.. wc3 is a very fun game to play~ but wc3 replays are kinda *meh* to me
while sc replays are amazing every times becasue with sbs u know there doing everything at once 
|
On October 04 2007 07:31 InRaged wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 06:44 Failsafe wrote:
inraged, you've been bitching about people using analogies because your own posts are so trivial as be completely ignored. what? + Show Spoiler +On October 04 2007 05:41 Failsafe wrote:
i think the piano/organ analogy might be able to reconcile the two sides if taken in light of liquid`drone's post.
the piano certainly strikes me as a more user-friendly interface than the organ and seems preferable in regard to producing the most aesthetically pleasing music given the constraint of human ability. but the piano/organ analogy breaks down because it has a different focus than starcraft, which is a competitive game, and is more interested in its competitiveness than in making a 'cool replay.' the korean competitive leagues are much closer to the essence of the game than this year's pimpest plays.
most of the pro-MBS side seems to be thinking in terms of the piano and the organ, and most of of the anti-MBS side seems to be thinking in terms of the skiier and poles in the ground.
both sides have merit, but the skiier and the poles are more the essence of starcraft than flashy visuals or the replay that comes out of a game. step-by-step -Piano is about music, skiing is about sport and competition -Daigomi made piano/organ analogy and he's pro-MBS (I'm sure he did that cause of 1sd2sd3sd example, who's btw anti-MBS) therefore most pro-MBS think in terms of music. -Liquid`Drone made skiing analogy and he's anti-MBS therefore anti-MBS mostly care about competition. -Music is about beauty therefore pro-mbs care about "cool replays"! -Starcraft is about competition hence anti-mbs crowd has more validity Should I point exactly in what steps above not just lack of logic but complete absence of any?
i got the impression that you were frustrated by the lack of attention. so far in this thread your posts have been vague and inflammatory and even so you weren't getting more than one response for every five comments.
but anyway, in reply to your accusation of sophistry, i think you've gotta consider which of us is really acting out the part. you've taken a lot of liberty in rewriting something i said.
for some reason you wrote 'piano is about music and skiing is about competition and sport.' of course that has nothing to do with what i was saying, but is just some mocking attempt at paraphrasing me.
you managed to turn two innocent metaphors into attempts at statistical syllogisms (points 2 and 3). which of course is not how i said or intended them.
your fourth point obviously misses the point of the post you're trying to criticize, but then that's to be expected given that everything you wrote before it was wrong.
and finally, in your fifth point i'm glad that you've spotted a premise that i've been arguing through the entire thread (though obviously insufficiently in the post you were trying to criticize). naturally i'm not going to repeat myself in the same thread, unless there seems to be some need for it. but yes, i think a large part of starcraft's success is owed to its competitiveness and i don't think it's smart to risk that competitiveness on a small upgrade to the user interface. the only way MBS and automining make any sense is if blizzard can demonstrate that they've found a way to avoid endangering the game's competitiveness by putting them in. anyway all that's been said before, but in case you missed it, there it is again.
anyway, i'm done with you and your 'sophistry,' and would like to invite you to make more productive future posts since this might still be a serious thread.
|
People keep saying there will constantly be stuff to do when you're not spending time macroing. They are talking from their ass and not backing it up with real examples.
I'd like to hear what people think will be taking up your time if you don't need to spend it on macroing (or at least the time you spend on macroing is greatly reduced). BTW I will be bringing in examples from War3 (not to diss it, in fact I like War3), because I know the game pretty well (I follow the pro scene as well as played ladder, perhaps someone else who is even more knowledgeable at War3 can come in and correct me) and I'm sure everyone here can agree that War3 has less macro involved than SC.
I've come up with a relatively short list of things that I personally do (or expect to do) in SC while not macroing (all that building, teching, expanding, and stuff falls under macro). Here's my relatively short list that will most definitely be increased in the near future:
Microing during a battle (biggest one)
Harassment (2nd biggest probably)
Positioning units
Defending
Scouting
I honestly can't think up of a big list (although I'm not trying too hard cause I'm sure others will add on). Sure having more time to micro during the battle would perhaps make them more spectacular and maybe even last longer, but if a majority of your army (or both armies) is (are) destroyed there will be a large period of waiting for armies to be rebuilt again which means during that time you'll have even less things to do than if you had to macro. In War3, after a large battle (or a smaller skirmish), players will go to creeping as well as minor harassment or improving their tech/expanding while their armies rebuild (part of macro). There are no creeps in SC, and there can only be so much harassment before it just becomes useless (remember that there will be more time for defense if there's more time for harassment), what will take up the players attention during this time? Will SC2 be a game where battles are continuously fought and never ending? Or perhaps the downtime between battles will be so short that it won't even matter?
How much time can positioning your units actually take? Good players in SC can already do this efficiently while juggling other tasks. SC units don't last as long as War3 units, so there can be very little back and forth running around at close proximities while taking potshots at each other (which is what happens in War3 a lot and is what takes up a large portion of the micro time in War3).
Scouting is already done by pros perfectly, I think even with more time on their hands, well placed proxies and well timed hidden expos will not be found easily (In War3, there are many games where people are able to hide an expo).
Defense of course can be improved if people had more time. I think there are both pros and cons to having better defense, but I'm lazy.
In a nutshell:
Less macro => "What will take up my time if I don't spend all that time macroing?"
Time spent macroing in SC > Extra time spent microing + Extra time spent doing other shit that I could think up.
=> Progamers = zzz
Anyone have anything to add? Preferably with actual examples from any competitive RTS. I'm calling out people who have competitive experience with other RTS's (Mora, Skew, Artosis, etc).
|
Another argument:
Managing a battle is always more stressy than managing buildings/sending units around. That's all because of human nature, no other reasons involved. Ask doctors if you don't see it that way. Losing a battle shakes us through and makes us less confident, winning a battle pushes us up. In either case we have to handle a lot of energy inside, positive and negative. In my opinion this is a strong anti-MBS argument because a battle creates stress and when the battle is over one can free his mind and regain stamina (or call it "rest" if you like, but not "relaxing" since one's active at that time) while managing macro. This gives us back our focus to go into the next battle.
Since macro will be routine after some training it has an effect on us that is much like meditation. We don't just regenerate, we also regain confidence and faith because of the repetition.
To support my opinion: in the majority of games in sc:bw there is a break after every battle, the players work out new plans, find holes in their own/opponent defense and all that. That's how a standard game of sc:bw looks like. And it works well because macro is ~50% of the game, we don't lose focus through that, we still have to be concentrated.
It only happens say every 20-30 games that the players decide not to let their opponent breath just once.
Macro-management is extremely important for our mind to regenerate and also to get a clear view of the whole situation. If you take out just 20% of the macro-mode you will likely get 10-20% more stress in the game since you don't even allow yourself to free your mind.
I can't describe it any better or be more accurate since everyone's different so of course there may be a superhuman who is immune to stress and unstableness. But 99% of us are not.
|
On October 04 2007 11:08 ArC_man wrote:
People keep saying there will constantly be stuff to do when you're not spending time macroing. They are talking from their ass and not backing it up with real examples.
I'd like to hear what people think will be taking up your time if you don't need to spend it on macroing (or at least the time you spend on macroing is greatly reduced). BTW I will be bringing in examples from War3 (not to diss it, in fact I like War3), because I know the game pretty well (I follow the pro scene as well as played ladder, perhaps someone else who is even more knowledgeable at War3 can come in and correct me) and I'm sure everyone here can agree that War3 has less macro involved than SC.
I've come up with a relatively short list of things that I personally do (or expect to do) in SC while not macroing (all that building, teching, expanding, and stuff falls under macro). Here's my relatively short list that will most definitely be increased in the near future:
Microing during a battle (biggest one)
Harassment (2nd biggest probably)
Positioning units
Defending
Scouting
I honestly can't think up of a big list (although I'm not trying too hard cause I'm sure others will add on). Sure having more time to micro during the battle would perhaps make them more spectacular and maybe even last longer, but if a majority of your army (or both armies) is (are) destroyed there will be a large period of waiting for armies to be rebuilt again which means during that time you'll have even less things to do than if you had to macro. In War3, after a large battle (or a smaller skirmish), players will go to creeping as well as minor harassment or improving their tech/expanding while their armies rebuild (part of macro). There are no creeps in SC, and there can only be so much harassment before it just becomes useless (remember that there will be more time for defense if there's more time for harassment), what will take up the players attention during this time? Will SC2 be a game where battles are continuously fought and never ending? Or perhaps the downtime between battles will be so short that it won't even matter?
How much time can positioning your units actually take? Good players in SC can already do this efficiently while juggling other tasks. SC units don't last as long as War3 units, so there can be very little back and forth running around at close proximities while taking potshots at each other (which is what happens in War3 a lot and is what takes up a large portion of the micro time in War3).
Scouting is already done by pros perfectly, I think even with more time on their hands, well placed proxies and well timed hidden expos will not be found easily (In War3, there are many games where people are able to hide an expo).
Defense of course can be improved if people had more time. I think there are both pros and cons to having better defense, but I'm lazy.
In a nutshell:
Less macro => "What will take up my time if I don't spend all that time macroing?"
Time spent macroing in SC > Extra time spent microing + Extra time spent doing other shit that I could think up.
=> Progamers = zzz
Anyone have anything to add? Preferably with actual examples from any competitive RTS. I'm calling out people who have competitive experience with other RTS's (Mora, Skew, Artosis, etc).
i was thinking along a similar train of thought before i read your post. What is there to do other than macro? More physically demanding micro is great and all, but what do you do when a battle isn't happening? A player must be challenged by the environment even when his opponent is not doing anything. In Warcraft 3 they have creeps (albeit this could be a small challenge - but it keeps you busy), in Company of Heroes - the game of which i am the most experience after Starcraft - they have a unique resource system where it demands constant attention. Since you can't forward-build in that game, you have no way to 'camp' your resources. You (and your opponent) are constantly taking/stealing/defending your resource points, and so even when you're not in a battle, you are still frantically busy.
The game is not as hectic as starcraft, but that, i feel, is more due to the game's speed than its mechanics (picture Starcraft on Fast speed, or even normal speed).
What kind of 'management' can you really demand of players other than Macro? Or, more accurately, what kind of new mechanic can they introduce to Macro to make it time-consuming and attention-demanding? Without undefendable resource points (like Company of Heroes), or AI mobs (war3), what direction are they heading? The impression (as pointed out by FA), is that they're trying to increase the demands of Micro - when that is not that problem (or a solution).
I will write this more coherantly and pose it as a question in the questions thread.
|
On October 04 2007 13:26 Mora wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 11:08 ArC_man wrote:
People keep saying there will constantly be stuff to do when you're not spending time macroing. They are talking from their ass and not backing it up with real examples.
I'd like to hear what people think will be taking up your time if you don't need to spend it on macroing (or at least the time you spend on macroing is greatly reduced). BTW I will be bringing in examples from War3 (not to diss it, in fact I like War3), because I know the game pretty well (I follow the pro scene as well as played ladder, perhaps someone else who is even more knowledgeable at War3 can come in and correct me) and I'm sure everyone here can agree that War3 has less macro involved than SC.
I've come up with a relatively short list of things that I personally do (or expect to do) in SC while not macroing (all that building, teching, expanding, and stuff falls under macro). Here's my relatively short list that will most definitely be increased in the near future:
Microing during a battle (biggest one)
Harassment (2nd biggest probably)
Positioning units
Defending
Scouting
I honestly can't think up of a big list (although I'm not trying too hard cause I'm sure others will add on). Sure having more time to micro during the battle would perhaps make them more spectacular and maybe even last longer, but if a majority of your army (or both armies) is (are) destroyed there will be a large period of waiting for armies to be rebuilt again which means during that time you'll have even less things to do than if you had to macro. In War3, after a large battle (or a smaller skirmish), players will go to creeping as well as minor harassment or improving their tech/expanding while their armies rebuild (part of macro). There are no creeps in SC, and there can only be so much harassment before it just becomes useless (remember that there will be more time for defense if there's more time for harassment), what will take up the players attention during this time? Will SC2 be a game where battles are continuously fought and never ending? Or perhaps the downtime between battles will be so short that it won't even matter?
How much time can positioning your units actually take? Good players in SC can already do this efficiently while juggling other tasks. SC units don't last as long as War3 units, so there can be very little back and forth running around at close proximities while taking potshots at each other (which is what happens in War3 a lot and is what takes up a large portion of the micro time in War3).
Scouting is already done by pros perfectly, I think even with more time on their hands, well placed proxies and well timed hidden expos will not be found easily (In War3, there are many games where people are able to hide an expo).
Defense of course can be improved if people had more time. I think there are both pros and cons to having better defense, but I'm lazy.
In a nutshell:
Less macro => "What will take up my time if I don't spend all that time macroing?"
Time spent macroing in SC > Extra time spent microing + Extra time spent doing other shit that I could think up.
=> Progamers = zzz
Anyone have anything to add? Preferably with actual examples from any competitive RTS. I'm calling out people who have competitive experience with other RTS's (Mora, Skew, Artosis, etc). i was thinking along a similar train of thought before i read your post. What is there to do other than macro? More physically demanding micro is great and all, but what do you do when a battle isn't happening? A player must be challenged by the environment even when his opponent is not doing anything. In Warcraft 3 they have creeps (albeit this could be a small challenge - but it keeps you busy), in Company of Heroes - the game of which i am the most experience after Starcraft - they have a unique resource system where it demands constant attention. Since you can't forward-build in that game, you have no way to 'camp' your resources. You (and your opponent) are constantly taking/stealing/defending your resource points, and so even when you're not in a battle, you are still frantically busy. The game is not as hectic as starcraft, but that, i feel, is more due to the game's speed than its mechanics (picture Starcraft on Fast speed, or even normal speed). What kind of 'management' can you really demand of players other than Macro? Or, more accurately, what kind of new mechanic can they introduce to Macro to make it time-consuming and attention-demanding? Without undefendable resource points (like Company of Heroes), or AI mobs (war3), what direction are they heading? The impression (as pointed out by FA), is that they're trying to increase the demands of Micro - when that is not that problem (or a solution). I will write this more coherantly and pose it as a question in the questions thread.
Yay CoH love! There will always be something to do as there will always be combat. I daresay that SC2 will have the potential to have essentially no downtime after the first few minutes of the game.
To show that I am not talking out of my ass, here is a possible scenario:
Example #1: M&Ms class with zeal/drags. Engagement last for a few (like 10-12) seconds. Then after the initial battle, in less than 30 seconds another battle takes place. Then another engagement but with a tank drop on P's main AND D. Templars on T expansion. Without batting their eyes, there is already a defensive presence inside the respective bases ready to fight off the harassment. Escalation. 3 Battlefronts + harassment + expansion defense all at the same time.
So. You have stuff to micro (harassment + exp defense + battle tactics in engagements) and macro (controlling 3 separate armies + checking your bases to see the damage that harassment has done + rebuilding SCVs + upgrade stuff + check for new expansion sites + a dash of 5m6zletternumbercombination). Sure this can happen also happen in SC1 but the thing here is that in SC2, this type of gameplay can be achievable by more people, it will not be limited to the Gosu. Not to mention that there would be essentially no rebuilding phase as it happens spontaneously with battle engagements (being so easy to do due to MBS). Taken as a whole, that would be a LOT of Macro. Again, the ability to keep up with this kind of frantic action would be more accessible to new/b and non-pro players.
Skill differentiation?
Well, there is still the problem of microing your 3 different armies, knowing what type of units to build afte..i mean, while in battle, how to respond to a specific type of harassment, bringing reinforcements to the front as quickly as possible or letting them wait to defend the base from harassments and/or counter-attacks that may or may not happen, which expansion to harass, Thor or Siege Tanks, right unit balance/mix...to counter...what?, to split up armies or not...and the list goes on and on...
Continuous tension. No rebuilding phase. Enough micro AND (IMHO) macro. For more people. I rest my case.
|
@ xtian15: You are completely right - assuming that players agree to battle/harass all the time, which won't be the case in up to 99% of the games. This alone makes all your theory useless.
And no, don't even think about it, we will not change our nature, we need to rest.
|
Eh, constant battle isn't that great anyways. Sure an action packed game is fun to watch, but so is the subtle maneuvering, the positioning of forces, the guessing of tech and counter tech, and the expansions to critical locations, and of course the hectic macro in preparation for the next battle. Sometimes the best part of SC is the calm before the storm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
