|
On October 19 2007 03:47 CTStalker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2007 03:36 Klockan3 wrote:On October 19 2007 03:31 CTStalker wrote:
yo're doing the same thing. you can't infer about a group's motives like that. the anti-mbs argument isn't so easily summed up. i thought about the same thing and mentioned it a dozen pages back or so, but it's just a possibility, certainly nothing to base a counter-argument off of. I mean, there is no other reason to be anti mbs, if they dont care about the game getting changed then they wouldnt even be here discussing. well now you've clearly demonstrated that you haven't read all of the anti-MBS arguments, or, if you have, then you understood none of them.
Well, now you mustve missunderstood something.
We have 2 criteria:
Criteria A: You must care about starcraft 2 and thus also about starcraft to a certain degree. If you dont care you wouldnt be here arguing.
Criteria B: You must think that mbs will hurt the game. If you dont think that mbs will hurt the game in any way then you have no reason to be against it. Hurting the game can be seen as hurting the proscene, or any other aspect since hurting parts of a game is also hurting the game just like hurting your arm is also hurting you.
Now, find me any anti mbs person here that is not filling both of those please.
|
Canada9720 Posts
No, you're wrong.
All the pro players just see the current way being torned up by all the stirring wich makes them want to preserve what they have, its natural and every community fights change since they are afraid of the unknown.
This is what you said. Everyone knows that sc2 will bring changes, but what you wrote here implies that it's the idea of change that sc veterans reject, when, in actuality, it's the individual effect of those changes on gameplay that people are concerned about.
your last post clears up perhaps what you originally meant a bit, but what i was trying to point out was your polarization of the anti-mbs arugment
|
On October 19 2007 04:01 CTStalker wrote:No, you're wrong. Show nested quote +All the pro players just see the current way being torned up by all the stirring wich makes them want to preserve what they have, its natural and every community fights change since they are afraid of the unknown. This is what you said. Everyone knows that sc2 will bring changes, but what you wrote here implies that it's the idea of change that sc veterans reject, when, in actuality, it's the individual effect of those changes on gameplay that people are concerned about. your last post clears up perhaps what you originally meant a bit, but what i was trying to point out was your polarization of the anti-mbs arugment
Well, I didnt said they rejected all change, but i see now that you could interpret it that way.
Noone knows exactly how mbs will change the game, noone knows if the game will be better/worse of it. Its quite easy to see both the pro's and con's of it, wich means that the effect I mentioned there becomes a large factor on wich side you choose. Logic prevails when it has a large advantage, but when the sides are as close as now logic cant decide this.
And if you look around the veteran community do detest all the changes more or less, but as I said the threads were the fear isn't based on logic they cant win wich makes those threads short lived. Same as how these mbs threads can live on forever since logic favors neighter side.
|
CTStalker:
You're right that his quote was a generalization that doesn't really work in this case, but I'm sure it is at least true to a "certain extent". For instance, almost every single new change that has been announced in SC2 was always met with a lot of negative opinion initially. Things from being 3-D, reapers, ghost model, mothership, stasis orb, cobra, thor, soul hunter, etc. Some were rightfully garbage ideas like the "soul hunter", and ended up being removed, while 3-D graphics are here to stay and any debate pretty much died out. Thor also ended up being accepted even though the concept initially sounded dumb.
I would know, because I feel the same way after playing SC for almost 9 years (with breaks in between) and I would love to see SC2 turn out exactly as SC did except with newer graphics as well. However, sometimes it helps to take a step back and think a bit from a different perspective.
What I dislike is when some TL posters (there are quite a few) reach the conclusion that MBS will 100% surely destroy SC2 based on the limited info about the game we currently have and extrapolating most arguments from the "perfection" of SC. Anyone who is that sure of themselves and attack others for not sharing their views is overconfident and quite arrogant IMO, regardless of whatever logic they try to use to support themselves, because we simply don't have that much of SC2 to work with yet (Zerg isn't even in the game).
Many veterans (including Mensrea and FA) realize the potential advantages of adding MBS (esp. the larger fanbase --> competition) alongside the disadvantages that it may bring and thus choose to wait until beta to make a final judgment. Even though they are more inclined to believe MBS has an overall negative impact, they are still willing to 'wait-and-see" before adamantly demanding its removal, and I feel this is the most logical way.
I will do the same, except that I believe that the pros may in fact outweigh the cons in the end, but I do expect Blizzard to abandon MBS if this is not in fact true.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
Yes, but I only fear that we may not know the LONG TERM effects of MBS until it is too late. Beta itself may not show the true colors of what MBS will do to our desired gameplay. But I too will wait and see.
|
On October 19 2007 03:31 CTStalker wrote:
you can't infer about a group's motives like that. the anti-mbs argument isn't so easily summed up. i thought about the same thing and mentioned it a dozen pages back or so, but it's just a possibility, certainly nothing to base a counter-argument off of.
This is true for the better arguers of the pro-MBS side as well (on TL.net, not the opinions of noobs). Their position is not easily summed up, yet false and inflammatory generalizations are often made against them, but most of these attacks are not expected to be well-backed with logic or reasoning.
|
On October 19 2007 05:07 Klogon wrote:
Yes, but I only fear that we may not know the LONG TERM effects of MBS until it is too late. Beta itself may not show the true colors of what MBS will do to our desired gameplay. But I too will wait and see.
Beta will at least make it clearer, I think that everyone can agree with that.
And just like I said, if they check the top beta players on their opinions and see if its hard for players to differentiate(Aka there is a very large top were you can't really pick the better players) I am sure that they will get valid responses.
|
MBS is a basic feature of the game that is required to be settled before other parts can even be balanced.
It cannot wait until beta, unless Blizzard is prepared to spend another half a development cycle just for balancing if it turns out MBS is bad.
|
Norway10161 Posts
On October 19 2007 08:23 Aphelion wrote:
MBS is a basic feature of the game that is required to be settled before other parts can even be balanced.
It cannot wait until beta, unless Blizzard is prepared to spend another half a development cycle just for balancing if it turns out MBS is bad.
I agree. If sc2 reaches beta stage with mbs and all of the auto stuff it will be balanced with this in mind.
The little I know about the game at this stage seems to be heavily geared towards massive focus on micromanagement in the way that almost every unit have some sort of ability that needs to be used for them to reach their maximum effectiveness. Even a unit as basic as zealots have something extra in sc2.
|
Canada5062 Posts
On October 18 2007 14:47 BlackStar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2007 13:32 mensrea wrote:
Your opinions are so far removed from the expected standard that you drive people (including your truly) into conniptions. Have the good sense to recognize this, think, learn from others, and improve.
I really think you need to calm down. There should not be an expected standard in opinions. And I also think that moderators should try to remain neutral in discussions as much as possible. You aren't only not doing that, but you are also flaming people back who got banned and deserved it, but that isn't helping either. Now I know that this site has quite novel rules. But really, I think moderators should try and set an example for others rather than just being above the law. Yes, I know that tl.net admits it's not fair and that's all fine. But let's be pragmatic. It just doesn't work. TL.net has the right not to be fair. But it's very contra-productive to what TL.net is trying to do. The way some people here discuss MBS and the way some moderators govern this board really isn't helping our side of the debate either. I know many of you, including myself, are getting sick of and frustrated by the repeated arguments and the ignorance of some people. But if we want to convince the other side the only thing we can do is be patient and try to tolerate their ignorance. Ooh, and you will see that in the end, after they have played more SC or after they experienced the SCII beta themselves, many will change their opinion. Yes, we can give up on them and just throw them off the site. But no one gains from that.
(Oh, gawd, I stay away for a day and this is what happens. Apologies to everyone in advance for my long post to come. I think the recent posts by TKWL and Klogon contain good points that should be discussed properly. But, I think some clarification is required on what we do here at TL.net.)
BlackStar + others:
Spare me your patronizing condescension. I will "calm down" when you start informing yourself before you decide to dispense advice. Why do people with little or no experience building and running a successful site for years think they have somehow stumbled upon the recipe for ideal forum moderation that we have not thought of and tried already. Please. Can you be any more disrespectful?
"There should not be an expected standard in opinions" you say? You believe that the role of mods is to stay neutral in discussions?
Listen up.
The prescription you propose has been tried before on other sites, most notably on the now-defunct broodwar.com. It does not work. If mods stay "neutral" on all opinions, if you allow any and all opinions to be posted without imposing standards, if you let "free speech" reign
absolutely or even in the same area code as absolutely, the level of the site deteriorates and the very same people who had advocated "free speech for all" so forcefully and vociferously before somehow find an excuse to stay away. The site dies. That is just the way it is, a rule of cyberspace as immutable and inexorable as any validated law of physics. Do you understand? That is the reality, not some theorycraft notion of the way we wish things would work.
And simply overwhelming stupid opinions with rational counters is also an inadequate solution - as you and others here have witnessed first hand, MOST STUPID PEOPLE DO NOT ACTUALLY REALIZE THEY ARE STUPID AND THAT THEIR OPINIONS ARE STUPID. They do not accept better opinions. They simply do not understand them. On the other hand, stupid people are supremely gifted at misinterpreting the opinions of others and knocking down strawman arguments they have conjured up with their fanciful imaginations.
Sometimes, when faced with such monstrous obtuseness, the best solution is to flame the hell out of such idiots, shout them down, and, if necessary, ban them. Yes, kiddies, sometimes the use of force is justified - in cyberspace and in real life. If this attitude offends your fragile sensitivities, then stay away from this site and go back to your fucking pie-in-the-sky-we-are-the-world John Lennon songs.
Fakesteve and TKWL, bless their bleeding hearts, are being charitable to all of you. Why do people think TL has some obligation to the general public to keep access open to everyone with a keyboard and net connection? We do not. We are a private site run by volunteers on our own fucking time. Is this news to any of you? The TL Ten Commandments clearly state that THIS IS OUR HOUSE. We run this site the way we see fit. Our prime imperative is to make this a kick ass site for pro gaming news and discussions. We have a duty to ban anyone, even everyone, if we feel it is necessary to achieve this objective, applying the only set of standards that matter on this site - OUR OWN. And why should it be OUR standards you say and not yours? BECAUSE THIS IS OUR HOUSE. If you do not like that, start your own damn site and see how well you fare.
Now all this thunder and fire-breathing may sound Fascist enough to send Mussolini's rotting corpse running for the hills wailing in terror, but consider this important piece of reality (there's that word again) - TL.net is, by most reasonable accounts, one of the top pro gaming websites on the world wide web, both in quality and popularity (although the latter is never really something we strive for). Our discussion forums in particular are among the most active in the RTS gaming community. This should mean something to all of you who think our rules are too harsh and/or not "pragmatic". If our standards are so truly dreadful, if the mods here are so truly draconian and unfair, if our rules are so impractical, well the reality is we would have been flushed down the cyberspace toilet a long time ago. The results, OUR results, speak for themselves. So stop fretting about some notional threat to your goddamn civil liberties. Geezus. We are reasonable people here (this isn't an opinion - the results prove this assertion), but we are on a mission, so you need to let us do our work.
Some of you may still feel that imposing standards unilaterally is somehow not right, that it is undemocratic, that it is unfair, that it offends the rules of civil society, that it somehow violates your human rights. These are basically the same people who want to live in a world without any consequences (at least not to themselves). They want to be able to write whatever they want secure in the knowledge that they are absolutely immune to any adverse consequences as long as they have a card that reads "it's only my opinion!" What madness. Kids, in real life, there are consequences to voicing stupid opinions whether you feel it's justified or not - consequences imposed on you by others who have the authority and/or power. You receive a failing grade. You get fired from your job or demoted. You get your face kicked in, etc., etc. That is just the way life works. Accept it. If you do not like it, then the practical solution, at least as it applies to our forum, is to inform yourself and stop voicing stupid opinions. Give that a try.
p.s. Contrary to popular perception, I do not ban people for being "against my opinion". Some think so, but they are simply unable or unwilling to read between the lines. I do detest debating on this forum. I find it is a waste of my time. So, when someone decides to engage me, I expect them to come with something I can respect. I do not mind an intelligent argument. I certainly enjoy engaging in spirited discourse at the right level. If I was not able to accept (intelligent) contrary opinions, I would not be friends with Nazgul (yeah, we got to know each other by flaming the hell out of each other on BW.com). But, almost without exception, the kinds of arguments I get slapped with instead are nothing more than the petulant, nitpicking, juvenile rants of a half-educated attention-seeker who thinks he has one-upped me because he found a spelling mistake in my written argument. To make matters worse, these people are incapable of reading between the lines, so I am forced to further waste my time by clarifying to these idiots the most elementary assumptions, again and again. I find such nonsense unbearable. This is a gun fight, so bring a gun, not a fucking knife. If you are not properly armed, the consequences are entirely yours.
|
mensrea, it's enough.
I can't take that anymore. You seem not to realize that people have the right to make mistakes and they also have the right to be uninformed which is why we tell them the truth several times, we reason our opinions well and we don't run away with "you're stupid and I am right get over it".
Who do you think you are? An Admin you are, or a Mod, but definitely not a leader or what. The only reason why you have some might here is because others gave it to you. Yes, you didn't have any might at all before someone picked you up and said "could you help us out on tl.net, please?". The thing is: now you have some might. You must use it carefully and yes, you have to be pragmatic up to some point.
I am so disgusted by your hatred and arrogance I can't take it anymore.
People are not stupid, they are different from you that is! If you can't live in a world with different people you are free to drink and forget or maybe just hang yourself.
I myself tried my best to argue on a good level with people that I don't see as stupid, only as des-informed or lazy which is not a crime. But you make it look like a crime! What you're doing is worse than cutting out important parts of an interview, you ban opinions claiming they are nothing but stupidity which is exactly what any dictator would do!
Think about it, I never flipped out before on this board because I don't want to get banned but this time I risk it with this post. I don't want to let you and your misguided views get away with this.
This site has it's own rules and I can live with it. But I am dead serious you're breaking it's rules.
|
You guys are retards for attempting to argue with Mensrea. He is not simply saying "You are stupid and I am right, so stfu." He has shown many times why you guys are simply not qualified and informed enough in your arguments - but you insist on dodging concrete issues and debating about your theoretical fancies. Any retarded opinion can be made to seem valid if you distance yourself from reality.
ForAdun, maybe you should see who wrote the rules of the site? I can't bear it everytime I see the influx of numbskulls who think this place is like a wanna be cyber-democracy like the usual internet forum cesspools you are used to. IMO, the mods have already been far too lenient with the huge mass of new posters. The basic rules of the site are being bent more than ever, and I feel that the texture of the site is being warped by those who are ignorant of how it works. We are in need of a few Rekrul drunken rampages. Perhaps this will be the beginning of change for the better?
|
On October 19 2007 14:22 Aphelion wrote:You guys are retards for attempting to argue with Mensrea. He is not simply saying "You are stupid and I am right, so stfu." He has shown many times why you guys are simply not qualified and informed enough in your arguments - but you insist on dodging concrete issues and debating about your theoretical fancies. Any retarded opinion can be made to seem valid if you distance yourself from reality. ForAdun, maybe you should see who wrote the rules of the site? I can't bear it everytime I see the influx of numbskulls who think this place is like a wanna be cyber-democracy like the usual internet forum cesspools you are used to. IMO, the mods have already been far too lenient with the huge mass of new posters. The basic rules of the site are being bent more than ever, and I feel that the texture of the site is being warped by those who are ignorant of how it works. We are in need of a few Rekrul drunken rampages. Perhaps this will be the beginning of change for the better?
I actually share mensrea's opinions in this thread and I also thought that some people seem to be stupid (tho I can't judge about that since I don't know them in reality) but what he's doing now is horrible. I could live with it if he said that he's actually sorry for being like that but he isn't even sorry. He seems to enjoy it.
The responses he got were not that bad, he's totally overreacting.
edit: you know, to earn respect from others you must show respect to them. From what I see here happen it seems like it could be his own fault for not being respected. I myself didn't receive any disrespectful posts which probably results from my own respect for others, for all others.
Btw I am aware of the fact that mensrea put a lot of work into this site, for that I have respect.
This doesn't give him the right to blame others for their opinions. Just opinions and nothing else.
|
The responses he got didn't seem bad because of 2 reasons
1.) They were careful, and tried to frame their opinions in an theoretical framework which masks the stupidity of their ideas when compared with concrete facts. This is also why the many of the pro-MBSers always start from a blank slate, a very theoretical approach that ignores scrutiny from actual experience and data. Like I said, anyone can seem reasonable when the debate is conducted in language that is far removed from solid common sense and reality. How do you think politicians have gotten away with stuff since the dawn of time? Orwellian doublespeak is an age old problem.
2.) The First Amendment argument has undeserved respect, especially in an internet site like this. Freedom of opinion always sounds good - but usually needs caveats to be applicable. The Internet is filled with trolls and retards, protected by the anonymity and restrained by common social mores. TL.net has shown that dictatorship, even when arbitrary and capricious, is warranted and necessary as quality control. Why do you think Rekrul is so loved? He has banned far more, and for far less, than Mensrea has. Mensrea has actually yet to ban any of you and spent time explaining things to you. That is the height of leniency. If you wish to stay long at this site, you better realize this fast.
|
On October 19 2007 14:52 Aphelion wrote:
The responses he got didn't seem bad because of 2 reasons
1.) They were careful, and tried to frame their opinions in an theoretical framework which masks the stupidity of their ideas when compared with concrete facts. This is also why the many of the pro-MBSers always start from a blank slate, a very theoretical approach that ignores scrutiny from actual experience and data. Like I said, anyone can seem reasonable when the debate is conducted in language that is far removed from solid common sense and reality. How do you think politicians have gotten away with stuff since the dawn of time? Orwellian doublespeak is an age old problem.
2.) The First Amendment argument has undeserved respect, especially in an internet site like this. Freedom of opinion always sounds good - but usually needs caveats to be applicable. The Internet is filled with trolls and retards, protected by the anonymity and restrained by common social mores. TL.net has shown that dictatorship, even when arbitrary and capricious, is warranted and necessary as quality control. Why do you think Rekrul is so loved? He has banned far more, and for far less, than Mensrea has. Mensrea has actually yet to ban any of you and spent time explaining things to you. That is the height of leniency. If you wish to stay long at this site, you better realize this fast.
Still, it's a site for the community and not against it, this is something that we all must realize.
1.) You talk about maskerade. Doesn't that sound a little bit pathetic/paranoid? I know some people like to do so but if they're really so good at it, how do you think they can be spotted? I found only one or two of these guys in this topic who obviously wanted to make a joke of the debate, all the others stayed calm as you said and kept arguing without any suspicous actions. Stating that there were more retards - mainly pro-MBSers you say - is pathetic and ignorant. It's based on nothing. If I was pro-MBS I could also say that most anti-MBSers are retards trying to dump the thread just by claming they were right. I could say they aren't funding their arguments on logic and experience, only on personal likings - which cannot really be refuted easily since many anti-MBSers outed themselves as hardcore fans of sc:bw like me.
Politics is complicated, we shouldn't take it as an example since we probably don't understand anything about it. I once thought I do but I was wrong. Leave politics to others.
2.) I don't agree that Rekrul is really so loved. I don't like him and his opinions at all but that got nothing to do with the trouble faced in this topic so lets take that aside. Please.
Well, Freedom of an opinion doesn't only sound good, it sounds fantastic. Do you really think your living standards come from nowhere? Mine come from freedom fighters, from people who actually died for their beliefs. I can't imagine what happened back then and I am not sure if I would do the same. I guess I won't, I am weak and - as a matter of youth, I am 21 years old - afraid of dying.
Last but not least, anonymity is actually what makes the internet what it is. You shouldn't blame it. The internet is a safe place because of anonymity. It's a good thing and must be held high.
I'll end my response with a comment to the "dictatorship" of tl.net you were talking about.
It doesn't exist, never did. When people get banned here there's always a good reason for it. But people didn't get discriminated.
Until now.
|
1. Its very real. There are several among here who have tried again and again to evade specifics - and talk in generalities. This is a forum of substance, not a circus of empty words. I disagree that ideas are all relative. Eventually, there are absurdities which are self-evident. Those who do know better must put their foot down at this point. To let it go on would be to ruin the purpose of all discussion and consequently the forum.
2. Rekrul is very capricious and acts on a whim, but his willingness to ban is the reason why TL.net has maintained its high quality to today. If we don't maintain it (and I think we are softening) we will quickly see a lowering of standards. That this thread even exists is bad sign.
And please, don't confuse political ideals with the workings of the internet. It should be obvious to anyone that the First Amendment cannot even remotely apply in this situation. There is a drastic difference in anonymous forum posting and person to person communication. I shouldn't have to elaborate on this fact. And while you make like the anonymity, for the purposes of keeping discourse at an acceptable level, you HAVE to realize that measures must be taken. It is proven that anonymity and easy access causes huge accumulation of retardation.
In any case, whether you like it or not, this is the way this site has always worked, and that will continue. Again, this is our house. If you don't like it - leave.
|
On October 19 2007 15:48 Aphelion wrote:
1. Its very real. There are several among here who have tried again and again to evade specifics - and talk in generalities. This is a forum of substance, not a circus of empty words. I disagree that ideas are all relative. Eventually, there are absurdities which are self-evident. Those who do know better must put their foot down at this point. To let it go on would be to ruin the purpose of all discussion and consequently the forum.
2. Rekrul is very capricious and acts on a whim, but his willingness to ban is the reason why TL.net has maintained its high quality to today. If we don't maintain it (and I think we are softening) we will quickly see a lowering of standards. That this thread even exists is bad sign.
And please, don't confuse political ideals with the workings of the internet. It should be obvious to anyone that the First Amendment cannot even remotely apply in this situation. There is a drastic difference in anonymous forum posting and person to person communication. I shouldn't have to elaborate on this fact. And while you make like the anonymity, for the purposes of keeping discourse at an acceptable level, you HAVE to realize that measures must be taken. It is proven that anonymity and easy access causes huge accumulation of retardation.
In any case, whether you like it or not, this is the way this site has always worked, and that will continue. Again, this is our house. If you don't like it - leave.
What I had to say is already said.
To some things you say I disagree but most of it makes sense so I don't find it neccessary to keep arguing.
But what I marked red just left me bluffed. Did I miss something? Who exactly are you? Do we need to know you? If you're not some VIP or anything like that you should better realize who you are and who you are not. You are not part of the tl.net staff if I am informed correctly.
edit: edited one error in my last post, I meant anti-MBSers outing themselves as hardcore fans, not pro-MBSers.
|
No, I definitely do not a special status here - if I implied otherwise that I apologize.
But I still fill justified in using my words. I have a personal attachment to this community, and therefore I choose "our" instead of "theirs" when I typed that. I already foresaw people nitpicking at it, but I felt it was most accurate to what I felt. I believe it would be wide-held sentiment of most TL.netters too that the rules speak for us as a whole.
I believe that it is insulting of you to post in this manner when you clearly have not grasped the rudiments of how this place works. But I respect this site and its rules - if any mod have a issue with the way I posted, I will similarly accept their judgment.
|
Hi guys. Im a long time lurker, but felt like posting now 
Ive been playing bw for some good 7 years or something and im following the proscene, and i am really an antiMBSer by heart.. i love bw with all its little quirks and i hope sc2 can still retain this wonderful micro vs macro balance and not just give us new stuff to micro instead (war3 style).
however, my friend's got this argument which i think is really valid:
if you asked a hardcore warcraft2 player before sc1 was released if u should be able to select more units in bw (9 was max), or be able to hotkey buildings (macro in war2 is insane >.< ), or even lose the extremely grid based gameplay (ok maby its not completely lost in bw :p) he would most likely argue that these are very important features for the RTS to be able to play at a hardcore level and would be 'noobifying' the gameplay.
and to some extent the war2 player is right, i mean try to micro and macro everything to perfection in war2 at its fastest speed, its extremely demanding and hard to do since the interface is restricting us (compared to bw) and the game speed is very high.
still, blizzard made bw (sc) which focused more on micro than war2 and the interface was made easier, and bw is (imho) the best competetive game ever made..
see the pattern? :>
this is what makes me think bliz can make an extremely competetive RTS even if they keep MBS if they just can come up with more stuff like the warp gates (macro intense, we need more macro in sc2 atm) and not just add more micro (one of the great things with bw is that you can never babysit your armies) and thats why i feel we are not 100% doomed with the introduction of MBS..
still i would absolutely love it if they announced that MBS is cut since i really want that macro vs micro balance to be left intact 
|
I'm not going to go into a 20 page explanation like some of you, and I know I'm going to anger some SC fanboys... but:
Anything short of an Age of Empires style hot key system will be a serious, and i mean serious, disappointment. I shall explain what that is, because from what I've read, I'm quite sure many of you have never played any other game in your life:
In Age of Empires, you can set hotkeys to go to your 'next' military building. You can pretty much set one for each type of military building you have. So I'll do a SC comparison. For example if your protoss, you can set your 'next gateway' key to almost any key on your keyboard, be it the letter 'A', the letter 'J', even numpad key '1'. If you only had 1 gateway created, and you pressed that hotkey (say 'A'), that gateway would be selected (no matter where you were on the map). If you had 2 gateways, the first time you pressed your 'A' key would go to one gateway, the next time you pressed it the next one would be selected (and the first would not be selected anymore), press it again and that first one would be selected, and it would keep switching between the 2 of them each time you pressed your 'A' key. If you had 3 or more gateways, each time you pressed your hot key you would rotate between all the gateways you have created so far.
Along with this, you could set the hot key to create units from that building to anything you want. You could set them anywhere, but you normally you want your 'create' hot keys right next to your building hot keys for easy access. So continuing the example, you can have your 'create Zealot' hot key set to 'S'. And for the examples sake, lets say you've set your 'create Hightemplar' hot key to 'D' and you have the buildings required for you to make high templars up already. To quickly make some zealots from all 3 buildings, all you hit was: A, S, A, S, A, S, which would obviously have all 3 gateways making 1 zealot each. To queue up some more zealots you just pressed 'S' a few more times while rotating through your gateways. Much of the Age 'macro' was rotating through your buildings hitting A, S, D, A, D, S, A, S, S, then rotating through your nexus to quickly make probes using similar hotkeys, and then getting back to your military units quickly and micro'ing them furiously.
Along with being able to rotate through your buildings individually, you can also select 1, 2, 3, or as many as you want and group them. If you grouped say 4 gateways into say group '9', and you wanted to make zealots from all 4 gateways, you obviously would only have to press 9, S quickly to have all 4 gateways making 1 zealot each. 9, D, D, D to have all 4 gateways making 3 high templars each.
Thats what made Age so good, the quick easy access to your buildings and the ability to rotate through them and make units quickly. SC2 must be like this, or have something similar that works just as good.
Having good controls does _not_ noobify the game. It takes more skill to micro and macro in an Age game (sorry SC fanboys). What does noobify a game is say having a limit on how many workers can gather a resource at a time (WC3 goldmine). Being penalized for having a bigger army (WC3 Upkeep) noobifies a game. Being penalized for having a bigger eco (BFME2, more 'workers' you have, the less your additional ones gather) noobifies games. A game where map control means nothing noobifies the game. A game where somehow it is more effective to have all your army in 1 spot (WC3, AOE3), and not spread out over the map, noobifies the game.
Anyways I've wrote more than I've intended, I might get to 20 pages if I keep going. But anything short of a good MBS such as Age of Empires MBS will be a serious serious letdown.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
