|
your ability to build units + your ability to control those units + how fast you are = starcraft
your ability to control units - building units - how fast you are = chess
your ability to control units - your ability to build units + how fast you are = NEXUS DESTROYERS CHAOS 6.4 JOIN ALLLL!!!!!111
seriously are we still argueing this? whatever can be said has been said already.
starcraft is NOT just about micro. the audience KNOWS they are macroing. trust me. if you think they dont, then you are noob. how you BALANCE and MULTITASK is EVERYTHING.
when you are fighting TvZ and your army gets raped and you have 2 marines left do you sit there for the next 5 seconds stim running them around? no you dont. with those precious PRECIOUS 5 seconds you could build a new round of marines and medics and expand and build scvs and move your scvs to the minerals. but wait. do you HAVE TIME to move that lone scv to the minerals. YOU KNOW you built one and YOU KNOW its sitting there but you have an army to hotkey you have your mom up your ass about you gaming too much you got a forum full of noobs to convince so you dont have the time to put that lone scv on minerals cuz the costs outweigh that tiny gain in minerals.
then there's always the douchebag who goes BUT I DONT WANT IT TO BE A CLICKFEST. I WANT TO IMPLEMENT MY STRATAGEEEEEEES. its as if these fuckers are fucking gods of war geniuses who fought in WW2 AND vietnam and they have some super fucking revolutionary way of fighting but its just that they're not fast enough and thats holding them back? NO
you're a fucking tennis prodigy huh? the only PROBLEM is that you're a fucking fat wanker with no arm strength, but if you were equipped with a magical tennis bat that could do all the smashes, serves, spins FOR you, you would be able to use your AWESOME STRATAGEEES!!!! RIGHT?
everything you take for granted IS STRATEGY. the only problem is that it was fed to you on a silverspoon. you did not go through 10 fucking games of getting your zealots raped by 4 vultures and THEN realizing that gate-core was the way. zealot micro vs marine attack-run-towards-marine-so-your-zealot-can-hit-after-cooldown was ALSO fed to you. IT IS ALL STRATEGY. you take it all for granted and then say that its a clickfest? muta micro hotkeying an ovie into the group. attack move, attack move attack move with gols, goons, marines when going up chokes so they dont get stuck when they come into range and all the others in the back do the macarena. running a zealot past lurkers to avoid massive splash. zealot bombs. temp drops, reaver micro EVERYTHING was thought of, tested, thrown out the window, retested, thought over, revolutionized. YOU are just the fucking snobby asshole who jumped on the bandwagon after sc2 was announced and you had a few games on BGH with your other fucking noob friends and took a few peeks here and there on TL and you're saying its A FUCKING CLICKFEST? treading over the hard work of others, you make me fucking sick.
|
On January 22 2008 12:16 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +As for 'fighting multiple fronts giving a new definition to strong macro', i don't see how they relate. with MBS and automine, having multiple base and pumping units will be easier. but the macro skill is not wasted. you can use that time to do flanks or attack multiple expansions. basically i relate macro to multi tasking
This post assumes that the reason most players dont attack on multiple fronts and flank as often is due to the fact that they must macro. Obviously this logic is flawed.
|
On January 22 2008 13:44 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2008 12:16 dybydx wrote:As for 'fighting multiple fronts giving a new definition to strong macro', i don't see how they relate. with MBS and automine, having multiple base and pumping units will be easier. but the macro skill is not wasted. you can use that time to do flanks or attack multiple expansions. basically i relate macro to multi tasking This post assumes that the reason most players dont attack on multiple fronts and flank as often is due to the fact that they must macro. Obviously this logic is flawed.
Well, StarCraft 2 will certainly see more multiple attacks than SC1. But certainly not because of easier macro. Separating your army is not often a good idea.
Deepstriking though (Phase prisms, nexus worms, drop pods and maybe more) will cause this and should be quite fun to watch.
|
Serious question for the anti-mbs, anti atuo-mine crowd.
What aren't you going to whine about ?
No seriously tell me, what are you not going to throw a shitty fit over ?
Simply shouting about everything will only lead to being ignored, because you are failing to be constructive.
Im pro-MBS.
I dont find my ability to spam 1m2m3m4m5m6m7m8m a particularly interesting thing to work on for hours, I have better things to do. I also disagree on this whole "You will never have to leave your army" shit, unless you are rallying every unit straight to the frontlines, you are still going to have to leave your army to direct those units you just built. You are still going to have to leave your army to build whatever buildings you are generating by directing your peons.
MBS does one thing; it lets you build units from many buildings with 2 button pressess instead of 10. Thats it, it doesnt do anything more or less than reduce the number of buttons you hit to achieve a result. And, as long as there is still an advantage to SBS over MBS (better unit mixes, better use of resources, whatever), it will do nothing except lower the barrier to entry for new games.
Simply saying "everyone who likes MBS is a noob and should die" underlines the fact you are behaving irrationally and increases the chances Blizzard ignore you for the frothymouthed carpet chewer you are. It would be nice to debate the actual pros and cons, but it appears that the community at large consists of flamers and shit-slingers; with that in mind I really do hope blizzard ignores most of you.
|
most of these <50 post users are probably people from the blizzard starcraft 2 board seeing as how every point they have raised has been argued in the previous mbs thread.
|
On January 22 2008 13:40 pyrogenetix wrote:
your ability to build units + your ability to control those units + how fast you are = starcraft
your ability to control units - building units - how fast you are = chess
your ability to control units - your ability to build units + how fast you are = NEXUS DESTROYERS CHAOS 6.4 JOIN ALLLL!!!!!111
seriously are we still argueing this? whatever can be said has been said already.
starcraft is NOT just about micro. the audience KNOWS they are macroing. trust me. if you think they dont, then you are noob. how you BALANCE and MULTITASK is EVERYTHING.
when you are fighting TvZ and your army gets raped and you have 2 marines left do you sit there for the next 5 seconds stim running them around? no you dont. with those precious PRECIOUS 5 seconds you could build a new round of marines and medics and expand and build scvs and move your scvs to the minerals. but wait. do you HAVE TIME to move that lone scv to the minerals. YOU KNOW you built one and YOU KNOW its sitting there but you have an army to hotkey you have your mom up your ass about you gaming too much you got a forum full of noobs to convince so you dont have the time to put that lone scv on minerals cuz the costs outweigh that tiny gain in minerals.
then there's always the douchebag who goes BUT I DONT WANT IT TO BE A CLICKFEST. I WANT TO IMPLEMENT MY STRATAGEEEEEEES. its as if these fuckers are fucking gods of war geniuses who fought in WW2 AND vietnam and they have some super fucking revolutionary way of fighting but its just that they're not fast enough and thats holding them back? NO
you're a fucking tennis prodigy huh? the only PROBLEM is that you're a fucking fat wanker with no arm strength, but if you were equipped with a magical tennis bat that could do all the smashes, serves, spins FOR you, you would be able to use your AWESOME STRATAGEEES!!!! RIGHT?
everything you take for granted IS STRATEGY. the only problem is that it was fed to you on a silverspoon. you did not go through 10 fucking games of getting your zealots raped by 4 vultures and THEN realizing that gate-core was the way. zealot micro vs marine attack-run-towards-marine-so-your-zealot-can-hit-after-cooldown was ALSO fed to you. IT IS ALL STRATEGY. you take it all for granted and then say that its a clickfest? muta micro hotkeying an ovie into the group. attack move, attack move attack move with gols, goons, marines when going up chokes so they dont get stuck when they come into range and all the others in the back do the macarena. running a zealot past lurkers to avoid massive splash. zealot bombs. temp drops, reaver micro EVERYTHING was thought of, tested, thrown out the window, retested, thought over, revolutionized. YOU are just the fucking snobby asshole who jumped on the bandwagon after sc2 was announced and you had a few games on BGH with your other fucking noob friends and took a few peeks here and there on TL and you're saying its A FUCKING CLICKFEST? treading over the hard work of others, you make me fucking sick.
QFT
I love you.
|
On January 23 2008 01:02 Wraithlin wrote:
Im pro-MBS.
I dont find my ability to spam 1m2m3m4m5m6m7m8m a particularly interesting thing to work on for hours, I have better things to do. I also disagree...
Just because I don't sit down and regurgitate everything that has already been said before by numerous people does not mean I cannot hold a civilized argument, its just that if I restate everything that has already been said it insults my intelligence and yours.
again, you seem to think that sc is
stratagy + micro - macro
that is -wrong-
I have played many players who are much better than me at micro but are significantly weaker than me at macro and so if I am able to survive early game I know that I have gained an advantage.
Its probably the equivalent if a strong macro player says "well i suck at micro so why dont we have auto-micro then omg i would win so hard"
You are the micro player who thinks "shit my macro sucks well lets make it auto-build then awesome i would win"
if you do not have the ability to quickly and efficiently create wave after wave of warriors, but enjoy microing your units then perhaps sc is not the game for you. for me, it is not tedious. it is something that i enjoy doing and when i see a difference in my army size as opposed to my enemy, its one of the best feelings in the world.
sc is just like a day at the beach. no matter how hard you try to grab hold of a handful of sand, little particles will always escape. you just have to make do with whatever sand you have left in your hand.
and if you're really trying to push that "i got better things to do than spend my time with a bunch of starcraft nerds with NOTHING BETTER TO DO" you will find that your attitude is one of the most unwelcome around here. Take a good long look around you. If you went into a soccer hooligan pub in England and the local team just lost and you shout out "OMG ITS JUST A GAME", what do you think your chances of exiting that pub alive are?
|
On January 23 2008 01:02 Wraithlin wrote:
Serious question for the anti-mbs, anti atuo-mine crowd.
What aren't you going to whine about ?
No seriously tell me, what are you not going to throw a shitty fit over ?
Simply shouting about everything will only lead to being ignored, because you are failing to be constructive.
What are you trying to say? We want to ruin the game on purpose? We don't understand the game? We don't understand fun? Our judgment is bad? We whine for the sake of whining?
This is just a silly personal attack. Why do you ignore arguments against interface automations? Especially while they are so strong and easy to understand.
Im pro-MBS.
I dont find my ability to spam 1m2m3m4m5m6m7m8m a particularly interesting thing to work on for hours, I have better things to do.
Then don't play RTS games.
I also disagree on this whole "You will never have to leave your army" shit, unless you are rallying every unit straight to the frontlines, you are still going to have to leave your army to direct those units you just built.
Unless, yes. Unless. You will be using your rally point. And if you switch to your rally point, which you don't even have to do, you will not be switching to your base. But to your army.
See? You just refuted your own argument.
Simply saying "everyone who likes MBS is a noob and should die" underlines the fact you are behaving irrationally and increases the chances Blizzard ignore you...
It's a fact that the more skilled a person is, the more probable it is that this person opposes MBS.
|
I made an account for this since I really found this very interesting.
I highly doubt that MBS will "ruin" Starcraft 2 simply because it makes the game easier, though I'm not going to force anything on anyone since I haven't played the demo. It's not as if only the "noobs" get this advantage. Everyone who deserves to be called a "pro" in my opinion or even above average should easily be able to adapt. Definitely, they're skill level may drop to the ones of a lower leveled player but that doesn't mean they'll stay like that. Though easily they should be able to regain their skill level to their original standards.
Personally, I do find the fast clicking of competitive play intriguing but when watching most of the videos, I watch from a spectator view (I'm pretty sure a lot of people do) and rarely do they switch to first person mode. Maybe it's just me and a few other English commentators, but I find Starcraft fun to watch because of people like Boxer where they come up with many interesting strategies to counter playing styles of other people and the epic battles that goes on all over the map.
IMO at the most upper tier of competitive play, the speed of clicking buildings is rarely ever a major factor which decides a game. At the lower end, it's about fun and maybe it's only me but I don't think MBS will hinder "fun" at all. Pros will own noobs pretty easily, noobs will put up a slightly better fight (which is more fun, no fun in picking off helpless noobs), So, when I look at it, noobs being able to put up a better fight is more "fun" and feels a lot more accomplishing than pretty much hitting on a helpless baby.
Anyways, just an opinion.
|
On January 23 2008 07:36 Sentus wrote:
I made an account for this since I really found this very interesting.
I highly doubt that MBS will "ruin" Starcraft 2 simply because it makes the game easier, though I'm not going to force anything on anyone since I haven't played the demo. It's not as if only the "noobs" get this advantage. Everyone who deserves to be called a "pro" in my opinion or even above average should easily be able to adapt. Definitely, they're skill level may drop to the ones of a lower leveled player but that doesn't mean they'll stay like that. Though easily they should be able to regain their skill level to their original standards.
Personally, I do find the fast clicking of competitive play intriguing but when watching most of the videos, I watch from a spectator view (I'm pretty sure a lot of people do) and rarely do they switch to first person mode. Maybe it's just me and a few other English commentators, but I find Starcraft fun to watch because of people like Boxer where they come up with many interesting strategies to counter playing styles of other people and the epic battles that goes on all over the map.
IMO at the most upper tier of competitive play, the speed of clicking buildings is rarely ever a major factor which decides a game. At the lower end, it's about fun and maybe it's only me but I don't think MBS will hinder "fun" at all. Pros will own noobs pretty easily, noobs will put up a slightly better fight (which is more fun, no fun in picking off helpless noobs), So, when I look at it, noobs being able to put up a better fight is more "fun" and feels a lot more accomplishing than pretty much hitting on a helpless baby.
Anyways, just an opinion.
It's not about adapting to the new UI. It only takes an hour or so to completely adapt to the new UI. The problem is that it completley removes macromanagement in midgame and lategame (I'm disregarding rallymining and smarcasting)
This results in the reduction of the overall skill ceiling, which means many more people are able to reach the top of this ceiling.
Instead of players who have something to work on, there is now a UI that they can use as a crutch to get to the top. It's not about pro vs. noob, it's about pro vs. pro and how it affects pro vs. pro battles.
When 2 skilled players play against each other, a tiny advantage is a lot. If one player has worse macro than the other player, MBS fills in the gap for them and allows them to have godlike macromanagement abilities. It's not like BW players want noobs to stay as noobs, the BW players want people who play this game competitively to have something to work towards.
If you don't think BW is a strategic game, then watch a couple vods from the year 2000, 2001, 2002 etc. all the way up to 2008. The game is still evolving. The new maps keep the strategies fresh, so it's not like strategy will be going anywhere, but MBS takes completely removes macro across the board.
I was kind of rushed to write this so if I made any mistake then just correct me I guess
|
On January 19 2008 00:33 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2008 20:54 Unentschieden wrote:On January 18 2008 17:25 prOxi.swAMi wrote:
I completely see where you're coming from Tal, but when it comes down to it I think the pros are the ones blizzard need to cater for, not the casuals.
I can't imagine any casual gamer being like "Oh, no MBS?! I'm SO not buying that now"
MBS is not needed to sell SC2, its name alone will. So all that's left to worry about (now that sales is out of the way), is that it maintains a high status among the most serious of gamers. MBS is required for this, IMO. You pulled that straight out of your ass. Casuals are the guys reading reviews before they buy. Thouse usually make controls a part of the rating. The majority of casuals does not look at the producer and some don´t remember SC (too young) so they will simply juyt buy it when the game has a 90%+ rating (ore equivalent). Pros and SC fanboys on the other hand propably already preordered the game already. (or would have if they could). The ones buying SC2 because it is SC/from Blizzard are NOT the casuals. A great game does not make it´s sequel succsessfull - take a look at Master of Orion 2 and 3. Sigh, well thanks for that incredibly mature response. My ass, I promise you, was not the origin of my post. You see, I realise people do read the reviews before deciding to buy. But do you seriously think no MBS is going to make people review it badly? "The game is totally awesome. So fast paced, really rightly balanced and hard-hitting action that we're sure gamers will soak up for another ten years. BUT! Don't buy it, there is no MBS  " No. It will get good reviews either way. Every Blizzard game does. btw if you're going to reply can you not be rude to me? I'm a sensitive man and I will get upset if you are rude! Please be gentle! (rofl)
Ok I´m sorry about my rude comment. That was a mistake.
Blizzard does not gain awards for being Blizzard. That is just laughable. Their games got great reviews because they were great. NOT because they were from Blizzard (North).
|
On January 23 2008 07:36 Sentus wrote:
I highly doubt that MBS will "ruin" Starcraft 2 simply because it makes the game easier, .
Making the game easier is basically the same thing as ruining it. We are not taking about not making the game fun. We are talking about making the game easier, damaging competition. And thus ruining SC2 as a competitive game.
|
On January 23 2008 08:38 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2008 00:33 prOxi.swAMi wrote:On January 18 2008 20:54 Unentschieden wrote:On January 18 2008 17:25 prOxi.swAMi wrote:
I completely see where you're coming from Tal, but when it comes down to it I think the pros are the ones blizzard need to cater for, not the casuals.
I can't imagine any casual gamer being like "Oh, no MBS?! I'm SO not buying that now"
MBS is not needed to sell SC2, its name alone will. So all that's left to worry about (now that sales is out of the way), is that it maintains a high status among the most serious of gamers. MBS is required for this, IMO. You pulled that straight out of your ass. Casuals are the guys reading reviews before they buy. Thouse usually make controls a part of the rating. The majority of casuals does not look at the producer and some don´t remember SC (too young) so they will simply juyt buy it when the game has a 90%+ rating (ore equivalent). Pros and SC fanboys on the other hand propably already preordered the game already. (or would have if they could). The ones buying SC2 because it is SC/from Blizzard are NOT the casuals. A great game does not make it´s sequel succsessfull - take a look at Master of Orion 2 and 3. Sigh, well thanks for that incredibly mature response. My ass, I promise you, was not the origin of my post. You see, I realise people do read the reviews before deciding to buy. But do you seriously think no MBS is going to make people review it badly? "The game is totally awesome. So fast paced, really rightly balanced and hard-hitting action that we're sure gamers will soak up for another ten years. BUT! Don't buy it, there is no MBS " No. It will get good reviews either way. Every Blizzard game does. btw if you're going to reply can you not be rude to me? I'm a sensitive man and I will get upset if you are rude! Please be gentle! (rofl) Ok I´m sorry about my rude comment. That was a mistake. Blizzard does not gain awards for being Blizzard. That is just laughable. Their games got great reviews because they were great. NOT because they were from Blizzard (North).
Not saying good reviews will be the result of the Blizzard name. I'm saying sales will be. Reviews will be good anyway because even though they might not like the lack of MBS, people have already stated it's an incredibly fun game to play.
|
Well, I will say part of the expansion is in the great network of internet in South Korea. It is faster, and I do believe covers more of the country. In America, my internet connection is too slow for Starcraft. (Transmission speed is the main problem, cost is the reason.) I am 6 foot '7-8 inches tall, although you will most likely not believe me, and I don't blame you. It reminds me of the time someone claiming to be on the Basketball team of the Lakers (Or is it a z?), we were playing evolves, and had a great time getting rid of him. (I am unable to get that same internet connection, even though it still wasn't that good. [Cost.]) Either way, I think there needs to be more sponsors, I'm not sure automation will scare people away as you think. Starcraft is more fun for me than basketball, if I had tried, I could have become a basketball millionare, now, I might be able to get a college scholarship playing basketball, little more. Either way, if video games can get me playing them, it will get more than me.
The economy is a ponderous thing in Starcraft, I wouldn't call it complicated, but I would say you should keep an eye out to be succesful. In other games, I have noticed that even when you have automated mining, you still have to buy more units and select what you want to mine. (Whether that be Vespene, Minerals, or building something.) So economy isn't really lost, but simplified, which will make less of a lurning curve, possibly keeping someone playing the game that originally would not have done so. Some people, just want to micro, which although may seem to hurt, would probably just end up in more money to the game creator. I see what you mean now though, game creators do occasionally get greedy, and might not respect the veterans later on.
One nice thing about automation is, maybe the vet's will start using nukes... I haven't seen that at all myself. Strategy is a fact of life, and they great to see in a game like Starcraft. No I'm not saying we should see them all the time, but they all should be viable, they should be those nice little loopholes you need to make the enemy think their on top, but turn it around a bit. The lack of strategy use will be fixed in Starcraft 2 a bit I believe. Save the nukes, they didn't seem to be improved... I'm worried about that. Mining is a fact of Starcraft. Just not too exciting for the begginers. The begginers are required for vets to exist in a few years however, so clearly there needs to be a balance, and the nuke obviously needs to be more practical for instance.
(And no I am not a scientologist. I do believe in both science, and God, without ignorance, it is clear they back eachother up.)
|
Canada9720 Posts
On January 23 2008 01:02 Wraithlin wrote:
Serious question for the anti-mbs, anti atuo-mine crowd.
What aren't you going to whine about ?
No seriously tell me, what are you not going to throw a shitty fit over ?
Simply shouting about everything will only lead to being ignored, because you are failing to be constructive.
Im pro-MBS.
I dont find my ability to spam 1m2m3m4m5m6m7m8m a particularly interesting thing to work on for hours, I have better things to do. I also disagree on this whole "You will never have to leave your army" shit, unless you are rallying every unit straight to the frontlines, you are still going to have to leave your army to direct those units you just built. You are still going to have to leave your army to build whatever buildings you are generating by directing your peons.
MBS does one thing; it lets you build units from many buildings with 2 button pressess instead of 10. Thats it, it doesnt do anything more or less than reduce the number of buttons you hit to achieve a result. And, as long as there is still an advantage to SBS over MBS (better unit mixes, better use of resources, whatever), it will do nothing except lower the barrier to entry for new games.
Simply saying "everyone who likes MBS is a noob and should die" underlines the fact you are behaving irrationally and increases the chances Blizzard ignore you for the frothymouthed carpet chewer you are. It would be nice to debate the actual pros and cons, but it appears that the community at large consists of flamers and shit-slingers; with that in mind I really do hope blizzard ignores most of you.
maybe you should actually, oh, i don't know, read the anti-mbs arguments that have been established before posting like this.
|
Canada9720 Posts
On January 23 2008 07:36 Sentus wrote:
IMO at the most upper tier of competitive play, the speed of clicking buildings is rarely ever a major factor which decides a game. At the lower end, it's about fun and maybe it's only me but I don't think MBS will hinder "fun" at all. Pros will own noobs pretty easily, noobs will put up a slightly better fight (which is more fun, no fun in picking off helpless noobs), So, when I look at it, noobs being able to put up a better fight is more "fun" and feels a lot more accomplishing than pretty much hitting on a helpless baby.
Anyways, just an opinion.
you may like to believe that strategy in starcraft trumps mechanics, and it may, but mechanics still play an important role, at least in sc1. mbs could change that though.
|
On January 23 2008 09:56 GeneralZap wrote:
Well, I will say part of the expansion is in the great network of internet in South Korea. It is faster, and I do believe covers more of the country. In America, my internet connection is too slow for Starcraft. (Transmission speed is the main problem, cost is the reason.) I am 6 foot '7-8 inches tall, although you will most likely not believe me, and I don't blame you. It reminds me of the time someone claiming to be on the Basketball team of the Lakers (Or is it a z?), we were playing evolves, and had a great time getting rid of him. (I am unable to get that same internet connection, even though it still wasn't that good. [Cost.]) Either way, I think there needs to be more sponsors, I'm not sure automation will scare people away as you think.
The economy is a ponderous thing in Starcraft, I wouldn't call it complicated, but I would say you should keep an eye out to be succesful. In other games, I have noticed that even when you have automated mining, you still have to buy more units and select what you want to mine. (Whether that be Vespene, Minerals, or building something.) So economy isn't really lost, but simplified, which will make less of a lurning curve, possibly keeping someone playing the game that originally would not have done so. Some people, just want to micro, which although may seem to hurt, would probably just end up in more money to the game creator. I see what you mean now though, game creators do occasionally get greedy, and might not respect the veterans later on.
One nice thing about automation is, maybe the vet's will start using nukes... I haven't seen that at all myself. Strategy is a fact of life, and they great to see in a game like Starcraft. No I'm not saying we should see them all the time, but they all should be viable, they should be those nice little loopholes you need to make the enemy think their on top, but turn it around a bit. The lack of strategy use will be fixed in Starcraft 2 a bit I believe. Save the nukes, they didn't seem to be improved... I'm worried about that. Mining is a fact os Starcraft. Just not too exciting for the begginers. The begginers are required for vets to exist in a few years however, so clearly there needs to be a balance, and the nuke obviously needs to be more practical for instance.
....yeah. Are you a scientologist?
|
On January 23 2008 04:20 pyrogenetix wrote:
again, you seem to think that sc is
stratagy + micro - macro
that is -wrong-
I have played many players who are much better than me at micro but are significantly weaker than me at macro and so if I am able to survive early game I know that I have gained an advantage.
Its probably the equivalent if a strong macro player says "well i suck at micro so why dont we have auto-micro then omg i would win so hard"
You are the micro player who thinks "shit my macro sucks well lets make it auto-build then awesome i would win"
if you do not have the ability to quickly and efficiently create wave after wave of warriors, but enjoy microing your units then perhaps sc is not the game for you. for me, it is not tedious. it is something that i enjoy doing and when i see a difference in my army size as opposed to my enemy, its one of the best feelings in the world.
sc is just like a day at the beach. no matter how hard you try to grab hold of a handful of sand, little particles will always escape. you just have to make do with whatever sand you have left in your hand.
You missed my point completely.
Im pro-macro, and Im an pro-multi tasking. Im anti-Howfastcanyoumashyourkeyboard. I dont really want SC2 to require the equivalent of para-legal touch typing skills just to play some fun games on BNet. The current state of SC1 is this, log on to BNet lose your first 600 games, then maybe you will have a chance to beat other people starting. The community is stagnant and shrinking everywhere except those countries with a pro-scene, and will continue to shrink as people move out because the barrier to entry is too high. If you want a flourishing SC community in 10 years, this trivial and mundane ability to hit keys on the keyboard really fast needs to go at the lower levels.
Macro is NOT how fast you can click all your buildings (1m2m3m4m5m6m7m). Macro is how you split your time between your army, and your base. Now MBS does not atuomatically remove or reduce the neccesity of leaving your army to control your base; you will still have to move away from your army to build units with peons for example. This is exaclty the same reason why I am anti-automine, because that will remove a task that requires you to take your eye off your army to assign workers. Its also why Im anti-autocast, its removing an activity that requires division of attention.
MBS lets you build from multiple structures with less clicks, functionally you replace 1m2m3m4m5m6m7m8m with 1m. You still have to goto your rally point to direct the newly built units, so you are still having to multitask. Later in the game the effects will be more pronouced because you will not have to return and click-select buildings when you run out of hot-keys; but wasnt Testie asking for more hotkeys (does that make Testie a noob because he wants to reduce those situations when he has to return to his base ?).
Yes you could, in theory, rally all your units direct to the battle and never return to your base; but in practise that would require you to keep a mental count on how long until your units complete so you can set a rally point just before they are spawned and start pathing, which is probably MORE effort than just returning to a rally point near your base to direct them (a-la SC1). Its practically impossible to do this if you are building more than 1 type of unit which will leave your units marching off to whereever the battle was 30seconds ago which is probably a bad thing (tm).
|
On January 23 2008 11:09 CTStalker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2008 01:02 Wraithlin wrote:
Serious question for the anti-mbs, anti atuo-mine crowd.
What aren't you going to whine about ?
No seriously tell me, what are you not going to throw a shitty fit over ?
Simply shouting about everything will only lead to being ignored, because you are failing to be constructive.
Im pro-MBS.
I dont find my ability to spam 1m2m3m4m5m6m7m8m a particularly interesting thing to work on for hours, I have better things to do. I also disagree on this whole "You will never have to leave your army" shit, unless you are rallying every unit straight to the frontlines, you are still going to have to leave your army to direct those units you just built. You are still going to have to leave your army to build whatever buildings you are generating by directing your peons.
MBS does one thing; it lets you build units from many buildings with 2 button pressess instead of 10. Thats it, it doesnt do anything more or less than reduce the number of buttons you hit to achieve a result. And, as long as there is still an advantage to SBS over MBS (better unit mixes, better use of resources, whatever), it will do nothing except lower the barrier to entry for new games.
Simply saying "everyone who likes MBS is a noob and should die" underlines the fact you are behaving irrationally and increases the chances Blizzard ignore you for the frothymouthed carpet chewer you are. It would be nice to debate the actual pros and cons, but it appears that the community at large consists of flamers and shit-slingers; with that in mind I really do hope blizzard ignores most of you. maybe you should actually, oh, i don't know, read the anti-mbs arguments that have been established before posting like this.
What like the 400 flamers who pretty much have a canned response to anything, I have read the whole of this thread, and the one before it. The anti MBS argumen can be summarized as this:
"Changing the UI makes the game easier, which makes the game less competative, which makes the game worse."
That, my friend, is reductionism, and reductionism is a fundamentally flawed standpoint. Making the game easier is not always the same as making the game less competative; SC is EASIER than WC2 but it is also more competative.
Secondly competativeness is a narrow definition of worse, is Blizzard dumb down SC2 and sell 10million copies do you think they will consider it a success ?
Which do you think Blizzard consider a bigger sucess, SC or WC3?
One has a player based tens of times bigger than the other.
Yes my opening questons were inflamatory, but honestly the majority of anti-mbs posts are flames or ad-hominem attacks on anyone who is pro-mbs by people who dont want anything changed. If you feel that changing anything is going to make SC2 worse than SC1, then you will never be happy and your opinions are pretty much worthless; if you are not even willing to consider that SC can be changed to make it better, you dont belong in a discussion about the future versions of SC.
I wont repeat my post above this one but I will repeat the key points.
I am PRO-MACRO
I am PRO-MBS
Hitting keys quickly is not macro, macro is the dvision of attention, actions, and concentration between your army and your base. What we should be focusing on is arguing for a version of MBS which preserves the need for a player to divide his attention, without requiring him to type 100wpm.
|
On January 23 2008 20:48 Wraithlin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2008 04:20 pyrogenetix wrote:
again, you seem to think that sc is
stratagy + micro - macro
that is -wrong-
I have played many players who are much better than me at micro but are significantly weaker than me at macro and so if I am able to survive early game I know that I have gained an advantage.
Its probably the equivalent if a strong macro player says "well i suck at micro so why dont we have auto-micro then omg i would win so hard"
You are the micro player who thinks "shit my macro sucks well lets make it auto-build then awesome i would win"
if you do not have the ability to quickly and efficiently create wave after wave of warriors, but enjoy microing your units then perhaps sc is not the game for you. for me, it is not tedious. it is something that i enjoy doing and when i see a difference in my army size as opposed to my enemy, its one of the best feelings in the world.
sc is just like a day at the beach. no matter how hard you try to grab hold of a handful of sand, little particles will always escape. you just have to make do with whatever sand you have left in your hand. MBS lets you build from multiple structures with less clicks, functionally you replace 1m2m3m4m5m6m7m8m with 1m. You still have to goto your rally point to direct the newly built units, so you are still having to multitask. Later in the game the effects will be more pronouced because you will not have to return and click-select buildings when you run out of hot-keys; but wasnt Testie asking for more hotkeys (does that make Testie a noob because he wants to reduce those situations when he has to return to his base ?).
No because nobody hotkeys their barracks in TvZ and goes 1m2m3m4m5m. There is NEVER enough keyboard room to do that. I don't know anything about zerg or toss but I know that terran mechanics rarely calls for keyboard only macro. It's mainly used during vult harass or drops. Also, you don't have to be a fast typer to be competitive. I started playing a mere 1.5 years ago (off and on) and I can get at least an even win:loss ratio on ICC with APM ranging from 100-150. APM is completely independent of typing as I can't type faster than 30 wpm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
