|
On November 10 2007 07:31 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2007 07:13 mahnini wrote:On November 10 2007 06:45 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On November 10 2007 06:27 mahnini wrote:On November 10 2007 05:25 1esu wrote:On November 10 2007 03:42 Aphelion wrote:
Estimating yourself to be B rank without having played the game for years and having ~120-150apm - thats a little bit arrogant, no? On November 10 2007 04:39 CaucasianAsian wrote:
As much as I doubt he's even a D+ player, I do know a 155 apm zerg who is B+ on iccup, but she's been playing a crazy amount of games, and is sooo smart in the strategy sense. On November 10 2007 04:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
As much as I hate to say it I still think he'll kick most of TL.net members asses in almost every other game though and he probably is a pretty competent Starcraft player at that. Mass gamers who excell in most games tend to be pretty good in other games as well.
His point still stands, regardless of B rank or not. I think that this trend towards ignoring the arguments and attacking the player behind them in an attempt to discredit their whole position (much like pointing out a witness's personal flaws in order to discredit their testimony) is not the direction we should be going in this discussion if we want to keep it civil and constructive. If you don't agree with what someone says, attack their argument, not the person behind it. As much as I hate to slightly derail this thread, someone claiming to be a B rank player on ICCup with 110apm and probably less than few months of playing will be seen as quite ridiculous. As for attacking the poster and not the argument. They were not attacking the poster, but rather his credibility. He might be a super omni rts guru, but he obviously knows very little about BW, and thus, his argument carries much less influence. Isn't that a little absurd though? This guy cannot be a decent gamer (B rank on ICCup is not even close to the top) because he can only make two efficent clicks per second? Do we *really* want a game that requires the manual dexterity to achive 250 APM to be even remotly competetive? I can buy the arguments about multitasking, having to leave your army to deal with other things and macro being a viable playstyle. But I don't want a game in which the main thing holding me back is that I have 120 APM and that is not enough. Which is the main thing holding me back rigth now. I'm not going to mass game just to get faster. I could deal with high APM being a skill, but IMHO it sucks that you have to be able to click so insanely fast. SC is a *strategy* game which means the main limiting factor should allways be strategy. I've played BW for years, I have excellent dexterity with my hands (dentist and all) and I'll probably never get better becuase I don't feel like practicing clicking. Just some thougths. Edit: Ban bumatlarge please. This kind of begs the question: why shouldn't having "only" 120apm hold you back? Obviously, you can reach a fairly high level with 120 apm (I'm going to guessing best of maybe C- to C level). If you want to get better then practice, if you don't put in the practice, you obviously won't get the desired result. I think this is the mentality of most MBSers, they want to achieve a higher level with less dedication. Obviously, this makes sense on a casual gamer level, but makes no sense when we talk about progaming and competition. That being said, I feel the same frustration as you do. My peak is around 120apm as well and sometimes it's very frustrating when I lose, but it doesn't mean I didn't have fun playing the game. Because it's a strategy game and not a clicking simulator? I'd have no problem at all if APM was a deciding factor. In high level play. As if you wanted to be in the top 20 % or so you should need top skills in everything. I also have no problem with fast playing being a skill that can make up for other things at lower play. Obviously an insanely fast player can multitask the hell out of me even though his play is sloppy. I just don't think it should be *the* deciding factor for casual gamers.
It's also a real-time strategy game, speed is meant to be a factor.
To be honest, it really isn't as big of an issue as you are making it out to be. Being fast can makeup for some skill, and at an equal strategic level, speed is probably going to be the deciding factor. However, there are plenty of players who can also rely almost solely on their experience and strategy to overcome other players. You just don't get to see it very often because usually speed grows with experience. It all depends on your mentality and style of play.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 10 2007 05:46 Aphelion wrote:
There is a lot about this MBS debate you simply cannot understand if you don't at least play BW decently. Even the same words will mean different things to you, and sometimes the concept will be lost entirely. Your credibility as a gamer counts in this regard, much more in SC than other games. I think it's fairly obvious this guy is qualified tho, B rank or not.
|
On November 10 2007 07:47 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2007 07:31 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On November 10 2007 07:13 mahnini wrote:On November 10 2007 06:45 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On November 10 2007 06:27 mahnini wrote:On November 10 2007 05:25 1esu wrote:On November 10 2007 03:42 Aphelion wrote:
Estimating yourself to be B rank without having played the game for years and having ~120-150apm - thats a little bit arrogant, no? On November 10 2007 04:39 CaucasianAsian wrote:
As much as I doubt he's even a D+ player, I do know a 155 apm zerg who is B+ on iccup, but she's been playing a crazy amount of games, and is sooo smart in the strategy sense. On November 10 2007 04:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
As much as I hate to say it I still think he'll kick most of TL.net members asses in almost every other game though and he probably is a pretty competent Starcraft player at that. Mass gamers who excell in most games tend to be pretty good in other games as well.
His point still stands, regardless of B rank or not. I think that this trend towards ignoring the arguments and attacking the player behind them in an attempt to discredit their whole position (much like pointing out a witness's personal flaws in order to discredit their testimony) is not the direction we should be going in this discussion if we want to keep it civil and constructive. If you don't agree with what someone says, attack their argument, not the person behind it. As much as I hate to slightly derail this thread, someone claiming to be a B rank player on ICCup with 110apm and probably less than few months of playing will be seen as quite ridiculous. As for attacking the poster and not the argument. They were not attacking the poster, but rather his credibility. He might be a super omni rts guru, but he obviously knows very little about BW, and thus, his argument carries much less influence. Isn't that a little absurd though? This guy cannot be a decent gamer (B rank on ICCup is not even close to the top) because he can only make two efficent clicks per second? Do we *really* want a game that requires the manual dexterity to achive 250 APM to be even remotly competetive? I can buy the arguments about multitasking, having to leave your army to deal with other things and macro being a viable playstyle. But I don't want a game in which the main thing holding me back is that I have 120 APM and that is not enough. Which is the main thing holding me back rigth now. I'm not going to mass game just to get faster. I could deal with high APM being a skill, but IMHO it sucks that you have to be able to click so insanely fast. SC is a *strategy* game which means the main limiting factor should allways be strategy. I've played BW for years, I have excellent dexterity with my hands (dentist and all) and I'll probably never get better becuase I don't feel like practicing clicking. Just some thougths. Edit: Ban bumatlarge please. This kind of begs the question: why shouldn't having "only" 120apm hold you back? Obviously, you can reach a fairly high level with 120 apm (I'm going to guessing best of maybe C- to C level). If you want to get better then practice, if you don't put in the practice, you obviously won't get the desired result. I think this is the mentality of most MBSers, they want to achieve a higher level with less dedication. Obviously, this makes sense on a casual gamer level, but makes no sense when we talk about progaming and competition. That being said, I feel the same frustration as you do. My peak is around 120apm as well and sometimes it's very frustrating when I lose, but it doesn't mean I didn't have fun playing the game. Because it's a strategy game and not a clicking simulator? I'd have no problem at all if APM was a deciding factor. In high level play. As if you wanted to be in the top 20 % or so you should need top skills in everything. I also have no problem with fast playing being a skill that can make up for other things at lower play. Obviously an insanely fast player can multitask the hell out of me even though his play is sloppy. I just don't think it should be *the* deciding factor for casual gamers. It's also a real-time strategy game, speed is meant to be a factor. To be honest, it really isn't as big of an issue as you are making it out to be. Being fast can makeup for some skill, and at an equal strategic level, speed is probably going to be the deciding factor. However, there are plenty of players who can also rely almost solely on their experience and strategy to overcome other players. You just don't get to see it very often because usually speed grows with experience. It all depends on your mentality and style of play.
True. It's not that I don't like speed, it's just that I like intresting stuff to happen when I click and I want to think when I click.
Which is why I mainly play z in 2on2s. 3 hatches on hotkeys is usually enough to keep your minerals and gas down and there's plenty of intresting muta and zergling clicking to do (not to mention scouting and keeping an eye on everything).
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
Back on topic please - if a post is obviously not credible just skip over it. FA and I can spot posts that are blatantly incorrect and we will handle them.
|
On November 10 2007 07:13 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2007 06:45 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On November 10 2007 06:27 mahnini wrote:On November 10 2007 05:25 1esu wrote:On November 10 2007 03:42 Aphelion wrote:
Estimating yourself to be B rank without having played the game for years and having ~120-150apm - thats a little bit arrogant, no? On November 10 2007 04:39 CaucasianAsian wrote:
As much as I doubt he's even a D+ player, I do know a 155 apm zerg who is B+ on iccup, but she's been playing a crazy amount of games, and is sooo smart in the strategy sense. On November 10 2007 04:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
As much as I hate to say it I still think he'll kick most of TL.net members asses in almost every other game though and he probably is a pretty competent Starcraft player at that. Mass gamers who excell in most games tend to be pretty good in other games as well.
His point still stands, regardless of B rank or not. I think that this trend towards ignoring the arguments and attacking the player behind them in an attempt to discredit their whole position (much like pointing out a witness's personal flaws in order to discredit their testimony) is not the direction we should be going in this discussion if we want to keep it civil and constructive. If you don't agree with what someone says, attack their argument, not the person behind it. As much as I hate to slightly derail this thread, someone claiming to be a B rank player on ICCup with 110apm and probably less than few months of playing will be seen as quite ridiculous. As for attacking the poster and not the argument. They were not attacking the poster, but rather his credibility. He might be a super omni rts guru, but he obviously knows very little about BW, and thus, his argument carries much less influence. Isn't that a little absurd though? This guy cannot be a decent gamer (B rank on ICCup is not even close to the top) because he can only make two efficent clicks per second? Do we *really* want a game that requires the manual dexterity to achive 250 APM to be even remotly competetive? I can buy the arguments about multitasking, having to leave your army to deal with other things and macro being a viable playstyle. But I don't want a game in which the main thing holding me back is that I have 120 APM and that is not enough. Which is the main thing holding me back rigth now. I'm not going to mass game just to get faster. I could deal with high APM being a skill, but IMHO it sucks that you have to be able to click so insanely fast. SC is a *strategy* game which means the main limiting factor should allways be strategy. I've played BW for years, I have excellent dexterity with my hands (dentist and all) and I'll probably never get better becuase I don't feel like practicing clicking. Just some thougths. Edit: Ban bumatlarge please. This kind of begs the question: why shouldn't having "only" 120apm hold you back? Obviously, you can reach a fairly high level with 120 apm (I'm going to guessing best of maybe C- to C level). If you want to get better then practice, if you don't put in the practice, you obviously won't get the desired result. I think this is the mentality of most MBSers, they want to achieve a higher level with less dedication. Obviously, this makes sense on a casual gamer level, but makes no sense when we talk about progaming and competition. That being said, I feel the same frustration as you do. My peak is around 120apm as well and sometimes it's very frustrating when I lose, but it doesn't mean I didn't have fun playing the game. You could also reverse this argument and claim that anti-MBS players are also wannabe pros with horrible micro and little to no "game sense", who don't want to lose their advantage from memorizing a series of cookie-cutter builds and learning to type 1sz2sz3sz4sz or what have you really fast. Obviously neither this nor your statement is true.
As for the question of APM, people tend to APM spike when they have to micro, not macro! If Starcraft 2 requires you to heavily micro every single battle for every single second of combat in order to gain an advantage, then I could only forsee the game taking more APM to play at a high level, not less.
|
On November 10 2007 08:08 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2007 05:46 Aphelion wrote:
There is a lot about this MBS debate you simply cannot understand if you don't at least play BW decently. Even the same words will mean different things to you, and sometimes the concept will be lost entirely. Your credibility as a gamer counts in this regard, much more in SC than other games. I think it's fairly obvious this guy is qualified tho, B rank or not.
I stand corrected then. But my point still stands - this argument must also take into consideration your BW credentials. This isn't like normal debate where logic is all that applies, there are so many specifics which require your understanding of the game.
|
On November 10 2007 08:40 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2007 08:08 FrozenArbiter wrote:On November 10 2007 05:46 Aphelion wrote:
There is a lot about this MBS debate you simply cannot understand if you don't at least play BW decently. Even the same words will mean different things to you, and sometimes the concept will be lost entirely. Your credibility as a gamer counts in this regard, much more in SC than other games. I think it's fairly obvious this guy is qualified tho, B rank or not. I stand corrected then. But my point still stands - this argument must also take into consideration your BW credentials. This isn't like normal debate where logic is all that applies, there are so many specifics which require your understanding of the game.
If a poster has insufficient understanding of the game to post on this topic, it will easily show through the content of his post (e.g. the guy who claimed MBS = micro). If it does, then this is violating one of the rules of this board "to know what you're talking about". In that case, point out the inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings that are present in his post and criticize his credibility there. Otherwise, it's up to the mods' discretion whether a post should be taken seriously or not. Furthermore, a person can have a decent understanding of the game without being a top-tier player by watching many VODs, replays, and so on.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On November 10 2007 08:57 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2007 08:40 Aphelion wrote:On November 10 2007 08:08 FrozenArbiter wrote:On November 10 2007 05:46 Aphelion wrote:
There is a lot about this MBS debate you simply cannot understand if you don't at least play BW decently. Even the same words will mean different things to you, and sometimes the concept will be lost entirely. Your credibility as a gamer counts in this regard, much more in SC than other games. I think it's fairly obvious this guy is qualified tho, B rank or not. I stand corrected then. But my point still stands - this argument must also take into consideration your BW credentials. This isn't like normal debate where logic is all that applies, there are so many specifics which require your understanding of the game. If a poster has insufficient understanding of the game to post on this topic, it will easily show through the content of his post (e.g. the guy who claimed MBS = micro). If it does, then this is violating one of the rules of this board "to know what you're talking about". In that case, point out the inaccuracies and/or misunderstandings that are present in his post and criticize his credibility there. Otherwise, it's up to the mods' discretion whether a post should be taken seriously or not. Furthermore, a person can have a decent understanding of the game without being a top-tier player by watching many VODs, replays, and so on.
This is entirely true, thank you.
FA and I will be sending out warnings to people who make blatantly wrong or ignorant posts, and will keep an eye on those people in the future.
On that note, please don't derail threads talking about whether someone is qualified to speak on a subject.
Further posts on this subject may be punishable. Back on topic, please!
|
On November 10 2007 08:22 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2007 07:13 mahnini wrote:On November 10 2007 06:45 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On November 10 2007 06:27 mahnini wrote:On November 10 2007 05:25 1esu wrote:On November 10 2007 03:42 Aphelion wrote:
Estimating yourself to be B rank without having played the game for years and having ~120-150apm - thats a little bit arrogant, no? On November 10 2007 04:39 CaucasianAsian wrote:
As much as I doubt he's even a D+ player, I do know a 155 apm zerg who is B+ on iccup, but she's been playing a crazy amount of games, and is sooo smart in the strategy sense. On November 10 2007 04:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
As much as I hate to say it I still think he'll kick most of TL.net members asses in almost every other game though and he probably is a pretty competent Starcraft player at that. Mass gamers who excell in most games tend to be pretty good in other games as well.
His point still stands, regardless of B rank or not. I think that this trend towards ignoring the arguments and attacking the player behind them in an attempt to discredit their whole position (much like pointing out a witness's personal flaws in order to discredit their testimony) is not the direction we should be going in this discussion if we want to keep it civil and constructive. If you don't agree with what someone says, attack their argument, not the person behind it. As much as I hate to slightly derail this thread, someone claiming to be a B rank player on ICCup with 110apm and probably less than few months of playing will be seen as quite ridiculous. As for attacking the poster and not the argument. They were not attacking the poster, but rather his credibility. He might be a super omni rts guru, but he obviously knows very little about BW, and thus, his argument carries much less influence. Isn't that a little absurd though? This guy cannot be a decent gamer (B rank on ICCup is not even close to the top) because he can only make two efficent clicks per second? Do we *really* want a game that requires the manual dexterity to achive 250 APM to be even remotly competetive? I can buy the arguments about multitasking, having to leave your army to deal with other things and macro being a viable playstyle. But I don't want a game in which the main thing holding me back is that I have 120 APM and that is not enough. Which is the main thing holding me back rigth now. I'm not going to mass game just to get faster. I could deal with high APM being a skill, but IMHO it sucks that you have to be able to click so insanely fast. SC is a *strategy* game which means the main limiting factor should allways be strategy. I've played BW for years, I have excellent dexterity with my hands (dentist and all) and I'll probably never get better becuase I don't feel like practicing clicking. Just some thougths. Edit: Ban bumatlarge please. This kind of begs the question: why shouldn't having "only" 120apm hold you back? Obviously, you can reach a fairly high level with 120 apm (I'm going to guessing best of maybe C- to C level). If you want to get better then practice, if you don't put in the practice, you obviously won't get the desired result. I think this is the mentality of most MBSers, they want to achieve a higher level with less dedication. Obviously, this makes sense on a casual gamer level, but makes no sense when we talk about progaming and competition. That being said, I feel the same frustration as you do. My peak is around 120apm as well and sometimes it's very frustrating when I lose, but it doesn't mean I didn't have fun playing the game. You could also reverse this argument and claim that anti-MBS players are also wannabe pros with horrible micro and little to no "game sense", who don't want to lose their advantage from memorizing a series of cookie-cutter builds and learning to type 1sz2sz3sz4sz or what have you really fast. Obviously neither this nor your statement is true.
thats not equivalent to what he said because having manual macro does not eliminate the importance of game sense and the other aspects of the game. anti mbs players want the game to be more complex and harder because that makes it a better game for competitive play. on the other hand putting mbs in does nearly eliminate the importance of one element of the game.
|
Hungary11305 Posts
I wonder if a clear terminology would help in this debate. [if not ignore / delete / pie]. I gather that the "Anti-MBS" faction (not assuming there is a unified one) has two main arguments:
1) preserving the skill-gap between casual and expert players
2) preserving some of the original BW game feeling and skillset which relies on "macro"
So, in order to understand the second point (which I certainly want to), we have to be more clear about what "macro" means. In this thread ...
Tiptup suggested:
Micro, in terms of babysitting our individual units is very powerful in SC, and those powerful kinds of actions sit in a sort of balance with the three, primary, macro actions of building peons/units, setting rally points, and telling our peons to collect a resource all game long. I myself would definitely want that kind of balance to remain.
Coming from the etymology, "macro"-management should refer to managing the big picture, opposed to singular units. I would at least include setting up expansions and managing them into it.
So macro:
- Building units
- Rallying units
- Constructing buildings
- Sending workers to resources
- Setting up expansions
Now, of this (hopefully to be complemented) list, 1,2 and 4 will likely be changed in sc2. MBS will affect 1 and 2, Automining will affect 4. Yet, this is only a part of macro. Even building units is not as straightforward as it looks. There is at least *some* decision involved in what unit to build at what time. You have to know when to click marine or medic, tank or goliath, depending on what game situation you are in. Same applies for setting up expansions and constructing buildings. While the mechanical procedure might be fairly straightforward, the decision making again is interesting - when to add production facilities, where to place them (proxies, hiding tech buildings ...) and so on. So there are at least two aspects of macro: decision-making on a macro scale and mechanical execution on the macro scale. The first requires something like game-sense, the second executional skills. BW moving more towards the macro scale is also due to the players knowing how much risk they can accept in early game to be rewarded in later game stages. (decision making)
If I understand it correctly, the argument of anti-MBS is voiced like this:
Taking care of the macro aspect of the game should take time. There should be a decision involved whether to micro or to macro at any given time or players should be forced to find ways to macro even in the most dire micro situations - thus increasing the challenge and the skill gaps. In order to take some time, macro needs a mechanical element such as singly selecting every production building.
So maybe the argument of anti-MBS can be put more clearly now: It is not about preserving macro in general, but about preserving an element involved in macro management which creates a mechanical challenge, which takes time, and which forces setting priorities on macro or micro in any given situation. So the debate does not concern "macro in general" but rather a specific subset of skills involved in macro-ing.
|
On November 10 2007 02:17 Aphelion wrote:
I think you are aware of this, but this is simply not how BW players define macro. When we say macro, we mean solely economy, expansion, and unit production. All the stuff you said counts under the category of "management". Please stick to the terms we use - otherwise you will just further confuse an already hard to follow debate.
I understand how most SC players define macro, but I find that definition too specific. The real definition of macro is this:
"very large in scale, scope, or capability."
If I believe that term can apply to other gameplay concepts, ones that can be used to provide an equal level of multitasking (in contrast with combat micro), who are we to say that such a thing isn't macro?
It seems to me that this whole debate is based on tunnel-vision on each side. The pro-MBS side keeps making very stupid arguments in my opinion. A game where you can multi-task fifty different units for endless micro possibilities, but no macro elements, would suck. At the same time, I don't see how "economy, expansion, and unit production" are logically equivalent with the term "macro" in every possible case and in every possible way. I know that's what macro is in StarCraft, but that's all it can mean for every type of game in existence?
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On November 10 2007 09:24 Tiptup wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2007 02:17 Aphelion wrote:
I think you are aware of this, but this is simply not how BW players define macro. When we say macro, we mean solely economy, expansion, and unit production. All the stuff you said counts under the category of "management". Please stick to the terms we use - otherwise you will just further confuse an already hard to follow debate. I understand how most SC players define macro, but I find that definition too specific. The real definition of macro is this: "very large in scale, scope, or capability." If I believe that term can apply to other gameplay concepts, ones that can be used to provide an equal level of multitasking (in contrast with combat micro), who are you to say that it isn't macro? It seems to me that this whole debate is based on tunnel-vision on each side. The pro-MBS side keeps making very stupid arguments in my opinion. A game where you can multi-task fifty different units for endless micro possibilities, but no macro elements, would suck. At the same time, I don't see how "economy, expansion, and unit production" are logically equivalent with the term "macro" in every possible case and in every possible way. I know that's what macro is in StarCraft, but that's all it can mean for every type of game in existence?
Stop.
We use specific definitions in StarCraft, and "Macro" means "economy and production management". I don't give a shit what the dictionary says, this is the definition we have used for years. There is no reason to bring up what it means for other games either.
Further posts about the definition of "macro" may be punishable! EDUCATE YOURSELVES.
|
On November 10 2007 09:21 Aesop wrote:So macro: - Building units
- Rallying units
- Constructing buildings
- Sending workers to resources
- Setting up expansions
Nice post there Aesop, I think this basic list should be pasted in the OP to prevent further confusion about definitions. You can't use the excuse "I didn't know" if it's right there in the OP.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
I added it to the OP as rule 7 
|
Ninja modding in the SC2 forums.. no way! This place might actually get somewhere now
|
On November 10 2007 07:37 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2007 07:28 teamsolid wrote:On November 10 2007 07:13 mahnini wrote:On November 10 2007 06:45 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On November 10 2007 06:27 mahnini wrote:On November 10 2007 05:25 1esu wrote:On November 10 2007 03:42 Aphelion wrote:
Estimating yourself to be B rank without having played the game for years and having ~120-150apm - thats a little bit arrogant, no? On November 10 2007 04:39 CaucasianAsian wrote:
As much as I doubt he's even a D+ player, I do know a 155 apm zerg who is B+ on iccup, but she's been playing a crazy amount of games, and is sooo smart in the strategy sense. On November 10 2007 04:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
As much as I hate to say it I still think he'll kick most of TL.net members asses in almost every other game though and he probably is a pretty competent Starcraft player at that. Mass gamers who excell in most games tend to be pretty good in other games as well.
His point still stands, regardless of B rank or not. I think that this trend towards ignoring the arguments and attacking the player behind them in an attempt to discredit their whole position (much like pointing out a witness's personal flaws in order to discredit their testimony) is not the direction we should be going in this discussion if we want to keep it civil and constructive. If you don't agree with what someone says, attack their argument, not the person behind it. As much as I hate to slightly derail this thread, someone claiming to be a B rank player on ICCup with 110apm and probably less than few months of playing will be seen as quite ridiculous. As for attacking the poster and not the argument. They were not attacking the poster, but rather his credibility. He might be a super omni rts guru, but he obviously knows very little about BW, and thus, his argument carries much less influence. Isn't that a little absurd though? This guy cannot be a decent gamer (B rank on ICCup is not even close to the top) because he can only make two efficent clicks per second? Do we *really* want a game that requires the manual dexterity to achive 250 APM to be even remotly competetive? I can buy the arguments about multitasking, having to leave your army to deal with other things and macro being a viable playstyle. But I don't want a game in which the main thing holding me back is that I have 120 APM and that is not enough. Which is the main thing holding me back rigth now. I'm not going to mass game just to get faster. I could deal with high APM being a skill, but IMHO it sucks that you have to be able to click so insanely fast. SC is a *strategy* game which means the main limiting factor should allways be strategy. I've played BW for years, I have excellent dexterity with my hands (dentist and all) and I'll probably never get better becuase I don't feel like practicing clicking. Just some thougths. Edit: Ban bumatlarge please. I think this is the mentality of most MBSers, they want to achieve a higher level with less dedication. I don't think this is true of most MBSers, except a few who are wannabe pros. I think most of them instead believe spending time on micro, tactics, multi-front battles, harassment, etc is more fun than clicking the same building repeatedly. It's not that they want to be more highly skilled than they legitimately should be, it's just that they prefer a game that emphasizes and rewards that style of play. I think this is key to understanding their point of view. This is a good point, I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions. Though you must admit, one of the key arguments is that SBS limits the player, which is somewhat synonymous with being too lazy to practice.
A definition needs to be cleared up here, on what pro-MBS arguers mean by "limitation", specifically "artificial limitation". To quote myself:
A theoretically perfect UI would allow you to execute any decision in the minimum number of keystrokes possible. The standard FPS interface is a good example of this: I want to crouch, I hit C; I want to jump, I hit the spacebar; I want to fire at that guy, I point and click. In SC, on the other hand, if I want to build 7 zealots, I must hit 14 keys placed at awkward (for a normal typist) positions on the keyboard, or alternate between clicking a gateway and hitting the z 'key' 14 times. This is what I call an "artificial UI limitation": making certain decisions much more difficult to execute using the UI to increase the difficulty of a game. This, also, is the pro-MBS's side's answer to "where do you stop making the game easier?": We stop at the point where the player makes a decision.
EDIT: For Aesop's definition,
So macro: - Building units
- Rallying units
- Constructing buildings
- Sending workers to resources
- Setting up expansions
While that's a great list of the mechanical aspects of macro, I think the theoretical aspects should also be included, like:
- Adapting your BO to your opponent's BO/strategy
- Utilizing your resources to build the most efficient number and type of units to battle your opponent's army
- Macro-related timing (expansions, supply)
|
On November 10 2007 09:15 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2007 08:22 Zanno wrote:On November 10 2007 07:13 mahnini wrote:On November 10 2007 06:45 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On November 10 2007 06:27 mahnini wrote:On November 10 2007 05:25 1esu wrote:On November 10 2007 03:42 Aphelion wrote:
Estimating yourself to be B rank without having played the game for years and having ~120-150apm - thats a little bit arrogant, no? On November 10 2007 04:39 CaucasianAsian wrote:
As much as I doubt he's even a D+ player, I do know a 155 apm zerg who is B+ on iccup, but she's been playing a crazy amount of games, and is sooo smart in the strategy sense. On November 10 2007 04:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
As much as I hate to say it I still think he'll kick most of TL.net members asses in almost every other game though and he probably is a pretty competent Starcraft player at that. Mass gamers who excell in most games tend to be pretty good in other games as well.
His point still stands, regardless of B rank or not. I think that this trend towards ignoring the arguments and attacking the player behind them in an attempt to discredit their whole position (much like pointing out a witness's personal flaws in order to discredit their testimony) is not the direction we should be going in this discussion if we want to keep it civil and constructive. If you don't agree with what someone says, attack their argument, not the person behind it. As much as I hate to slightly derail this thread, someone claiming to be a B rank player on ICCup with 110apm and probably less than few months of playing will be seen as quite ridiculous. As for attacking the poster and not the argument. They were not attacking the poster, but rather his credibility. He might be a super omni rts guru, but he obviously knows very little about BW, and thus, his argument carries much less influence. Isn't that a little absurd though? This guy cannot be a decent gamer (B rank on ICCup is not even close to the top) because he can only make two efficent clicks per second? Do we *really* want a game that requires the manual dexterity to achive 250 APM to be even remotly competetive? I can buy the arguments about multitasking, having to leave your army to deal with other things and macro being a viable playstyle. But I don't want a game in which the main thing holding me back is that I have 120 APM and that is not enough. Which is the main thing holding me back rigth now. I'm not going to mass game just to get faster. I could deal with high APM being a skill, but IMHO it sucks that you have to be able to click so insanely fast. SC is a *strategy* game which means the main limiting factor should allways be strategy. I've played BW for years, I have excellent dexterity with my hands (dentist and all) and I'll probably never get better becuase I don't feel like practicing clicking. Just some thougths. Edit: Ban bumatlarge please. This kind of begs the question: why shouldn't having "only" 120apm hold you back? Obviously, you can reach a fairly high level with 120 apm (I'm going to guessing best of maybe C- to C level). If you want to get better then practice, if you don't put in the practice, you obviously won't get the desired result. I think this is the mentality of most MBSers, they want to achieve a higher level with less dedication. Obviously, this makes sense on a casual gamer level, but makes no sense when we talk about progaming and competition. That being said, I feel the same frustration as you do. My peak is around 120apm as well and sometimes it's very frustrating when I lose, but it doesn't mean I didn't have fun playing the game. You could also reverse this argument and claim that anti-MBS players are also wannabe pros with horrible micro and little to no "game sense", who don't want to lose their advantage from memorizing a series of cookie-cutter builds and learning to type 1sz2sz3sz4sz or what have you really fast. Obviously neither this nor your statement is true. thats not equivalent to what he said because having manual macro does not eliminate the importance of game sense and the other aspects of the game. anti mbs players want the game to be more complex and harder because that makes it a better game for competitive play. on the other hand putting mbs in does nearly eliminate the importance of one element of the game. The equivalence is in the absurdity of the two statements. Both cases suggest that suddenly a stronger player will suddenly have problems defeating a weaker player, but MBS will not make it so that a casual newbie player is suddenly even or has the slightest of chances against a hardcore mass gamer. Likewise, you could say that pro-mbs players want the game to be more complex and harder on the micromangement level.
I'm just saying that ad hominem attacks against the skill level of pro-MBS players while simulataneously saying "oh, what we want is more skilled" is not the way to approach the argument. This will not persaude Blizzard to remove it. MBS will have a profound impact on low-mid level play, yes, but what needs to be shown is that MBS will stagnate the game at the highest levels of play.
|
On November 10 2007 09:26 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
EDCUATE YOURSELVES. [/b]
Yes, good advice. I'm glad someone as educated as you is moderating this debate. Otherwise things could easily get out hand. For instance, macro means what it means in StarCraft. We wouldn't want people to erroneously think that StarCraft 2 is a different game from the original StarCraft. We need to remain educated.
Now that I'm back on track, I'd just like to say that I've played StarCraft continually since the first day it came out. It's my favorite game of all time. And, I know what kinds of things I find most fun in the game. If those aspects, very large in scale, scope, and capability, can be an alternative to the "macro" lost through MBS, then I would prefer that. If it can't, then I believe SBS should remain in StarCraft's sequel.
|
On November 10 2007 09:40 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2007 09:15 IdrA wrote:On November 10 2007 08:22 Zanno wrote:On November 10 2007 07:13 mahnini wrote:On November 10 2007 06:45 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On November 10 2007 06:27 mahnini wrote:On November 10 2007 05:25 1esu wrote:On November 10 2007 03:42 Aphelion wrote:
Estimating yourself to be B rank without having played the game for years and having ~120-150apm - thats a little bit arrogant, no? On November 10 2007 04:39 CaucasianAsian wrote:
As much as I doubt he's even a D+ player, I do know a 155 apm zerg who is B+ on iccup, but she's been playing a crazy amount of games, and is sooo smart in the strategy sense. On November 10 2007 04:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
As much as I hate to say it I still think he'll kick most of TL.net members asses in almost every other game though and he probably is a pretty competent Starcraft player at that. Mass gamers who excell in most games tend to be pretty good in other games as well.
His point still stands, regardless of B rank or not. I think that this trend towards ignoring the arguments and attacking the player behind them in an attempt to discredit their whole position (much like pointing out a witness's personal flaws in order to discredit their testimony) is not the direction we should be going in this discussion if we want to keep it civil and constructive. If you don't agree with what someone says, attack their argument, not the person behind it. As much as I hate to slightly derail this thread, someone claiming to be a B rank player on ICCup with 110apm and probably less than few months of playing will be seen as quite ridiculous. As for attacking the poster and not the argument. They were not attacking the poster, but rather his credibility. He might be a super omni rts guru, but he obviously knows very little about BW, and thus, his argument carries much less influence. Isn't that a little absurd though? This guy cannot be a decent gamer (B rank on ICCup is not even close to the top) because he can only make two efficent clicks per second? Do we *really* want a game that requires the manual dexterity to achive 250 APM to be even remotly competetive? I can buy the arguments about multitasking, having to leave your army to deal with other things and macro being a viable playstyle. But I don't want a game in which the main thing holding me back is that I have 120 APM and that is not enough. Which is the main thing holding me back rigth now. I'm not going to mass game just to get faster. I could deal with high APM being a skill, but IMHO it sucks that you have to be able to click so insanely fast. SC is a *strategy* game which means the main limiting factor should allways be strategy. I've played BW for years, I have excellent dexterity with my hands (dentist and all) and I'll probably never get better becuase I don't feel like practicing clicking. Just some thougths. Edit: Ban bumatlarge please. This kind of begs the question: why shouldn't having "only" 120apm hold you back? Obviously, you can reach a fairly high level with 120 apm (I'm going to guessing best of maybe C- to C level). If you want to get better then practice, if you don't put in the practice, you obviously won't get the desired result. I think this is the mentality of most MBSers, they want to achieve a higher level with less dedication. Obviously, this makes sense on a casual gamer level, but makes no sense when we talk about progaming and competition. That being said, I feel the same frustration as you do. My peak is around 120apm as well and sometimes it's very frustrating when I lose, but it doesn't mean I didn't have fun playing the game. You could also reverse this argument and claim that anti-MBS players are also wannabe pros with horrible micro and little to no "game sense", who don't want to lose their advantage from memorizing a series of cookie-cutter builds and learning to type 1sz2sz3sz4sz or what have you really fast. Obviously neither this nor your statement is true. thats not equivalent to what he said because having manual macro does not eliminate the importance of game sense and the other aspects of the game. anti mbs players want the game to be more complex and harder because that makes it a better game for competitive play. on the other hand putting mbs in does nearly eliminate the importance of one element of the game. The equivalence is in the absurdity of the two statements. Both cases suggest that suddenly a stronger player will suddenly have problems defeating a weaker player, but MBS will not make it so that a casual newbie player is suddenly even or has the slightest of chances against a hardcore mass gamer. Likewise, you could say that pro-mbs players want the game to be more complex and harder on the micromangement level. I'm just saying that ad hominem attacks against the skill level of pro-MBS players while simulataneously saying "oh, what we want is more skilled" is not the way to approach the argument. This will not persaude Blizzard to remove it. MBS will have a profound impact on low-mid level play, yes, but what needs to be shown is that MBS will stagnate the game at the highest levels of play.
That post was not ad hominem at all. CCK was suggesting that speed should not play such a large role in BW and presented MBS as a solution. I was merely stating speed does not pose a large an obstacle as he implied and that through practice you can achieve the necessary speeds.
That was it. I have a feeling you are just trolling now.
Edit: Let me rephrase that. You aren't practicing against the UI, you are practicing against the people who can more easily and quickly manipulate the UI than you can.
|
On November 10 2007 09:39 1esu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2007 07:37 mahnini wrote:On November 10 2007 07:28 teamsolid wrote:On November 10 2007 07:13 mahnini wrote:On November 10 2007 06:45 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On November 10 2007 06:27 mahnini wrote:On November 10 2007 05:25 1esu wrote:On November 10 2007 03:42 Aphelion wrote:
Estimating yourself to be B rank without having played the game for years and having ~120-150apm - thats a little bit arrogant, no? On November 10 2007 04:39 CaucasianAsian wrote:
As much as I doubt he's even a D+ player, I do know a 155 apm zerg who is B+ on iccup, but she's been playing a crazy amount of games, and is sooo smart in the strategy sense. On November 10 2007 04:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
As much as I hate to say it I still think he'll kick most of TL.net members asses in almost every other game though and he probably is a pretty competent Starcraft player at that. Mass gamers who excell in most games tend to be pretty good in other games as well.
His point still stands, regardless of B rank or not. I think that this trend towards ignoring the arguments and attacking the player behind them in an attempt to discredit their whole position (much like pointing out a witness's personal flaws in order to discredit their testimony) is not the direction we should be going in this discussion if we want to keep it civil and constructive. If you don't agree with what someone says, attack their argument, not the person behind it. As much as I hate to slightly derail this thread, someone claiming to be a B rank player on ICCup with 110apm and probably less than few months of playing will be seen as quite ridiculous. As for attacking the poster and not the argument. They were not attacking the poster, but rather his credibility. He might be a super omni rts guru, but he obviously knows very little about BW, and thus, his argument carries much less influence. Isn't that a little absurd though? This guy cannot be a decent gamer (B rank on ICCup is not even close to the top) because he can only make two efficent clicks per second? Do we *really* want a game that requires the manual dexterity to achive 250 APM to be even remotly competetive? I can buy the arguments about multitasking, having to leave your army to deal with other things and macro being a viable playstyle. But I don't want a game in which the main thing holding me back is that I have 120 APM and that is not enough. Which is the main thing holding me back rigth now. I'm not going to mass game just to get faster. I could deal with high APM being a skill, but IMHO it sucks that you have to be able to click so insanely fast. SC is a *strategy* game which means the main limiting factor should allways be strategy. I've played BW for years, I have excellent dexterity with my hands (dentist and all) and I'll probably never get better becuase I don't feel like practicing clicking. Just some thougths. Edit: Ban bumatlarge please. I think this is the mentality of most MBSers, they want to achieve a higher level with less dedication. I don't think this is true of most MBSers, except a few who are wannabe pros. I think most of them instead believe spending time on micro, tactics, multi-front battles, harassment, etc is more fun than clicking the same building repeatedly. It's not that they want to be more highly skilled than they legitimately should be, it's just that they prefer a game that emphasizes and rewards that style of play. I think this is key to understanding their point of view. This is a good point, I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions. Though you must admit, one of the key arguments is that SBS limits the player, which is somewhat synonymous with being too lazy to practice. A definition needs to be cleared up here, on what pro-MBS arguers mean by "limitation", specifically "artificial limitation". To quote myself:
A theoretically perfect UI would allow you to execute any decision in the minimum number of keystrokes possible. The standard FPS interface is a good example of this: I want to crouch, I hit C; I want to jump, I hit the spacebar; I want to fire at that guy, I point and click. In SC, on the other hand, if I want to build 7 zealots, I must hit 14 keys placed at awkward (for a normal typist) positions on the keyboard, or alternate between clicking a gateway and hitting the z 'key' 14 times. This is what I call an "artificial UI limitation": making certain decisions much more difficult to execute using the UI to increase the difficulty of a game. This, also, is the pro-MBS's side's answer to "where do you stop making the game easier?": We stop at the point where the player makes a decision.
EDIT: For Aesop's definition, Show nested quote +So macro: - Building units
- Rallying units
- Constructing buildings
- Sending workers to resources
- Setting up expansions
While that's a great list of the mechanical aspects of macro, I think the theoretical aspects should also be included, like: - Adapting your BO to your opponent's BO/strategy - Utilizing your resources to build the most efficient number and type of units to battle your opponent's army - Macro-related timing (expansions, supply)
Can we lay off the definition stuff? My point still stands either way, achieving good SBS macro is not impossible, it just requires practice that pro MBSers do not want to put in. Should this really be the way to shape a competitive game?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
