|
And as I said before, I am not willing to sacrifice anything competitively. There are hundreds of noob RTSes out there. The Starcraft franchise is for the competitive community.
And while BW was seen as a micro game, the good players always had good macro. Even Boxer was considered to have great macro TvP way early on, and players like Blackman were renowned for their macro. Macro simply was as codified or understood back then, but it was an important and powerful role nevertheless.
Even Boxer's micro style - in his own words, it was meant to "steal the time of the opponent". Whats the point of stealing time if all the other player has to do is to micro anyways? Stealing time and diverting attention is only important if the other player has to invest significantly in macro.
|
Macro isn't dead, it's just easier in the late game (it doesn't change early or mid game significantly).
Don't forget that.
|
Unless you consider 2 base late game, MBS and automine significantly minimize macro past early game.
And with smartcasting and what not, micro doesn't seem to be getting much harder either.
|
On December 02 2007 08:12 Aphelion wrote:
Even Boxer's micro style - in his own words, it was meant to "steal the time of the opponent". Whats the point of stealing time if all the other player has to do is to micro anyways? Stealing time and diverting attention is only important if the other player has to invest significantly in macro.
Just pointing out that both in WC3 and DoW where macro is close to inexistant, trying to overwhelm your opponent's concentration and control level are important. For example, in a simple WC3 combat, trying to force your opponent to control a certain parts of the fight to then surprise him out with quick surrounds is a very used tactic, as is using "sore thumb" units (lower hp units put in front, but ready to move back or be healed) to divert focus and prepare traps, even on the pro scene. In DoW, it's attacking on multiple fronts and economy harassment that's mainly used to take players off their game and force them to lose time in some less important areas.
An example, UvN early game, DK + ghouls push vs DH + creeping AoW -> Archers. Undead pushes inside the NE's base, the NE moves back from creeping to defend. So wisps get molested, NE comes back and sticks the DH into the ghouls, keeping archers in the periphery. Now, if the NE loses too many archers, usually the game ends right there, and same for the UD if too many ghouls die.
What good Undeads will often do then is to use skellies and a few ghouls to go after the archers and drag the DH a bit farther from teh moonwells, separating his forces to force archers to run into different directions. Now it comes to controling 3-5 fights at the same time. Upon making separate fights, the UD will try after that to put pressure on the DH to either move out or use moonwell juice. If he stays in, the UD will try to pull a surround on him away from moonwells, which will then force constant control of the DH to not lose the game right there, easing the Ghoul vs Archer fights.
If you look at some FoV replays, he does that very, VERY well. And NEs have to work very hard to defend this, and the key is not the DH, but Archer position and control. If the NE manages to put ghouls out of position and focus on them, the manaburned DK won't be able to do much and the UD will have to retreat.
It's a little example on how a simple fight with units in the very low counts can push two pro players to the limit of their speed (think controling 3-4 Vulture vs Dragoon separate fights at the same time). So, what will cause the game to be competitive or not is not really it's focus on micro or macro, but it's general design. If it's designed well, it'll be competitive.
A competitive RTS doesn't have to be necessarily divided between Micro and Macro, and the meaning of these 2 words do not necessarily have to be the same, as well.
|
BlackSphinx - thank you for illuminating me. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable of RTSes besides SC.
But I still believe that the essence and greatness of SC is this division between macro and micro, and the equal importance of both. A sequel needs to remain true to that spirit. And there is also no debating that MBS would decreasing multitasking - and I believe such a decrease will be very very significant.
SC is the greatest RTS made. It is not wise to take out a core feature of it with vague promises and uncertain ideas that you will "somehow add more features" to compensate for it.
|
Micro and macro should not be made artificially hard. Your opponent should dictate how hard it's going to be.
If your opponent sucks, has zero game understanding, doesn't build units that counter yours, has bad timing, and so on, then why should you need 120 APM to beat him? Why not be able to beat him with e.g. 40 APM?
And this is exactly the problem: SC1's UI requires a minimum amount of APM (and the longer the game lasts, the higher this requirement will be), otherwise you can't control the game well in late game. You have to be busy all the time, regardless of your opponent's skill.
The UI is your second enemy.
SC2's UI is your friend and will allow you to "adapt" your max. APM to your opponent. If he sucks, then you can play slow and still win, because you make the smarter decisions and have a better game understanding (not because you're faster). This is what makes the game much more appealing to casual gamers and newbies in general.
But if your opponent is a pro, then you need 300+ max. APM, simply because of the increased need to micro your units well and to control e.g. harassment + normal attack, or multiple drops, or multiple attacks on different expansions. Then you need a good game understanding AND speed.
So if you play against a good player, there's basically no change from SC1. Even in WC3, which is almost purely micro based, you need to be very fast if you want to be a pro. So it can't be any different in SC2 at the higher levels. But it WILL make the game easier for 2 bad players playing.
All players who play SC2 (or SC2 alpha) for the first time are to be considered newbs because it's a completely new game. So I don't expect e.g. Tasteless to say anything different than "ewww... the game is so easy", because he simply didn't have the need to be fast yet. In SC1 you are constantly busy, whether your opponent sucks or not.
This will change when there are strong opponents with a good understanding of SC2 (not SC1).
|
Stop bring up the "artificial UI" crap, it has been debunked over and over again. All UI's are artificial. It is simply a matter of degree. The perfect game isn't some game where everything can be effortlessly directed by thought alone. There has to be a physical, mechanical, component, and as long as that component exists - SBS has a powerful argument.
SC is still a game where the smart can win with less apm. Look at Testie, and how many times he raped with <150apm. But players can also win with insane multitasking and execution. Look at Bisu's game 2 vs Savior today. Are you to say that that was just some mindless clicking and mouse speed?
Too often people separate the strategic and mechanical components too much when discussing this issue. Mechanical competence requires the presence of mind to know, at a split instant, what is most important and to do them. Noobs don't just not macro because they can't click fast enough, they don't macro because they are lost and flustered in the game situation and don't immediately cut through the crap and recognize what must be done right then and there. It takes mental ability to make these small, subtle and incremental decisions.
Similarly, strategy also consists of weighing the mechanical costs of different situations and actions, both on your part and your opponent's. It is smart to continously divert and harass a noob who you know can't keep up. It is smart to sneak a dt into a Zerg's base when he is busy microing a center fight. It is smart to ignore those to stray zealots and focus on the more immediate problem of getting your tech and production going in time.
MBS isn't going to improve strategy at the expense of mechanics. It is going to hurt both and the game as a whole.
|
My post was covering late game only. If a game doesn't last so long or players only have 2 or 3 bases then there's no big need to click like mad, yes. But once you have 3-5 bases (probably 1 more if Z), a straight-up game of SC1 becomes a burden to manage well.
|
2-3 Base you easily have 8-12 production buildings, not even including the 3 autorallied and auto mined town halls all keyed to one number.
Oh yes, MBS will have a big, big effect on that.
|
Remember that you have to mix units, so you can't really build 8-12 units of the same type all the time. Especially in early and mid game, it's important to have the right unit mix to counter your opponent well. In late game, when you mainly mass units (e.g. ultras, goons), MBS will help you the most. And that's a good thing.
|
Real easy to get around that. While you need a good mix, your only going to have around 2 staple unit types. Divide the production, spam those two keys once in a while, and make the special spellcasters / detectors when you have time to come back and build pylons.
I reckon it will reduce the difficulty of macro after 1 base by at least 2-3 times.
|
I agree with Aphelion. SC2 should be as difficult as possible to play. Hence they need to make sure you cannot select more than 1 unit at a time. None of this having 3, 4, 8, 9 units all selected and issuing a order. You should have to select each of your units individually and issue the orders to all of them. Being able to order multiple units at a time a command is ruining the game. Also they need to remove the 'attack move' function. You should have to select each unit individually and individually select a target for each unit that you have. If you can't do that your too much of a noob and don't deserve to play SC. SC is for the competitive community and if you can't macro all your units individually your a noob, and don't deserve to play. Aphelion is onto something you really should all listen to him.
PS. If anyone couldn't tell I was being sarcastic 
|
Good points there Brutalisk.
That was a refreshing take on the "fight my opponent, not the UI" argument. What you are saying is the opponent dictates how hard the game is, not the game itself. I hadn't thought of it quite like that before. I couldn't agree more.
|
On December 02 2007 20:36 teapot wrote:
Good points there Brutalisk.
That was a refreshing take on the "fight my opponent, not the UI" argument. What you are saying is the opponent dictates how hard the game is, not the game itself. I hadn't thought of it quite like that before. I couldn't agree more.
You cannot just fight an opponent. If you want to do that, you can go outside and take em on in a fist fight.
A RTS game is a medium for a fight. A way to create a fair envrionment which tests and challenges the players in specific skills that are required to win. The specific skills required are set by the game's UI. The winner is the person who is best able to use the UI to manipulate the battlefield in their favour. The debate here is what skills should be required to be a good starcraft 2 player, and what skills should the UI force a player to be good at.
You cannot just fight your opponent. You are always fighting the UI. The UI's design designates what skills a player needs to be good at if he wants to defeat his opponent.
On December 02 2007 18:54 Markus wrote:I agree with Aphelion. SC2 should be as difficult as possible to play. Hence they need to make sure you cannot select more than 1 unit at a time. None of this having 3, 4, 8, 9 units all selected and issuing a order. You should have to select each of your units individually and issue the orders to all of them. Being able to order multiple units at a time a command is ruining the game. Also they need to remove the 'attack move' function. You should have to select each unit individually and individually select a target for each unit that you have. If you can't do that your too much of a noob and don't deserve to play SC. SC is for the competitive community and if you can't macro all your units individually your a noob, and don't deserve to play. Aphelion is onto something you really should all listen to him. PS. If anyone couldn't tell I was being sarcastic
Please return to the Battlenet forums if you wanna just post garbage. Your post contains absolutely nothing useful and does not contribute to this argument in any way.
|
Another point that seems to get over looked is just how powerful MBS will be for focus firing you're static defenses, such a sunkens and and cannons. Being able to mass selection those and focus them makes them extreme more dangerous than they were before.
|
That's not a problem. In fact, it's a good thing (see point 2).
First of all, it's exactly like than focus firing with your units. Do you think that 4+ dragoons killing 1 marine with 1 shot is imbalanced? Probably not. So why should it be imbalanced if a static defense can do that? Static defense has many disadvantages anyway (that's why you always try to only get as much static defense as really necessary, and invest your money in normal units instead), you can't do hit and run, and there are plenty of units capable of dealing efficiently with static defense (tanks, thors, reavers, reapers, ...).
Secondly, in the case of a Protoss phase cannon rush, which will probably become a popular early or mid game cheese strategy, it's actually a great thing, because it makes this rush more powerful. That rush would terribly suck if you couldn't control what the cannons target. The enemy could easily deal with that by sending a few useless units first (e.g. workers, or fly a building...) and then his real forces which kill the cannons quickly. It would mean that this rush eventually becomes useless as the players' skill improves.
But if you can focus fire with the cannons, then this rush will suddenly be much more viable and the enemy needs to be careful and scout well. One more viable strategy = always a good thing. More control to the player = also a good thing.
|
On December 02 2007 22:43 NotSorry wrote:
Another point that seems to get over looked is just how powerful MBS will be for focus firing you're static defenses, such a sunkens and and cannons. Being able to mass selection those and focus them makes them extreme more dangerous than they were before.
This really isnt a problem of MBS. Its just something that will have to be balanced.
Im an advocate for anti-MBS, but I dont mind having MBS as long as ure screen is centered on the buildings while they are selected, which would allow you to focus fire defenses. The only reason I want SBS is so a player cant spend the entire game babysitting his army and macroin with a couple of hotkeys. I want them to be forced to move their view around the map, bouncing back and forth between their base and their troops to keep everything running smooth. If you could double click your barracks and select all of them on screen, Id have no problems. But if you could hotkey groups of barrack's so you dont have to return to base to macro, then thats when I draw the line and say no.
I think this is a fair sacrifice. The noob players are not going to hotkey their buildings anyways. They just want the ability to select a bunch of them and expend all their money. The more competative gamers, well they should man up.
|
On December 02 2007 18:54 Markus wrote:I agree with Aphelion. SC2 should be as difficult as possible to play. Hence they need to make sure you cannot select more than 1 unit at a time. None of this having 3, 4, 8, 9 units all selected and issuing a order. You should have to select each of your units individually and issue the orders to all of them. Being able to order multiple units at a time a command is ruining the game. Also they need to remove the 'attack move' function. You should have to select each unit individually and individually select a target for each unit that you have. If you can't do that your too much of a noob and don't deserve to play SC. SC is for the competitive community and if you can't macro all your units individually your a noob, and don't deserve to play. Aphelion is onto something you really should all listen to him. PS. If anyone couldn't tell I was being sarcastic
And your sarcasm is failing, since your reductio ad absurdum is one which has been used many times and debunked an equal amount of times.
There is a continuum between competitiveness and ease of use. The UI and the mechanical components it brings to the game are crucial to both its fun and competitiveness. The only question remains where on the continuum SC2 should be, but BW has shown that its current UI works extremely well for that. It remains, 9 years after its release, far and away the premier competitive RTS game.
MBS would remove much from the original game, and all the arguments here for MBS have yet to shown what will replace one of the core elements of macro beyond vague and uncertain suggestions.
|
MBS should be implemented in the game, however there should be an option in game that allows u to turn it on or off such as i have it on and u have it off and vice versa. ppl have to remember SC2 is made for all kinds of gamers. in order for blizzard to capture many gamers. it is essential to include MBS. its more of a personal taste than fairness or being pro like. if u think u r pro then u can turn the option off, and rest who think MBS is more convenient and easy to use then they can have it on. having MBS turned on or off does not contribute to game wins or losses nor does it make u noob or pro.
|
God, everyone please read the thread before posting. All this shit has been brought up countless times before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
