EPTOn February 01 2008 02:10 almostfamous wrote:
Not everybody who plays has a numberpad, so thats not an option.
Not everybody who plays has a numberpad, so thats not an option.
It is if you can set up your keys yourself.
[D] MBS Discussion II - Page 23
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2620 Posts
It is if you can set up your keys yourself. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On January 31 2008 09:58 Wraithlin wrote: People didnt need MBS when the best SC player in the world had 100 apm. People need help getting going now if you dont want every new player to quit after being crushed in the first 10 or so BNet games. [e] I find it ironic that after 20 pages we are baco to "Macro = button clicks". Sorry but the main arguement against MBS is that it allows a plyer to macro without taking his focus off his army, how is that any different from 1z2z3z... with unlimited hotkeys. The issue is that the player can build all his units without taking his screen off his army, not that mbs reduces army building from 10 clicks to 1 click. If you are arguing that unlimited hotkeys is ok, but MBS is not then you are arguing that macro is nothing but hitting keys quickly. And you have undermined arguments from the anti-MBS crowd that have been propping up this thread for so long. And yet people like Testie want more hotkeys .... There are still plenty of people, even after 10 years, who have sub 100 APM. and APM doesnt give you an unsurmountable advantage anyways. It is definitely possible for a new player to come in and still find games of their skill level. There are plenty of people who dont macro properly and cant multitask, especially at the lower levels. Yes, people wont be able to come in and become progamers without practice if mbs is missing. But do you really think they should? A game isnt accessible if a noob can come in and easily become a progamer. A game's accessibility is based on whether a player can find people their own skill level. And even in BW, we see that people can. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
| ||
|
Wraithlin
United Kingdom50 Posts
On February 01 2008 02:27 fusionsdf wrote: It is definitely possible for a new player to come in and still find games of their skill level. There are plenty of people who dont macro properly and cant multitask, especially at the lower levels. Oh REALLY ? Thats why the last half dozen threads along the lines of "Im new and never win, what am I doing wrong?" have been answered with "Yeah you will go 1-100 because some guy disconnects on you, just keep playing". | ||
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
On February 01 2008 05:15 Wraithlin wrote: Oh REALLY ? thats why the last half dozen threads along the lines of "Im new and never win, what am I doing worng" have basically been answered with "Yeah you will go 1-100 because some guy disconnects on you, just keep playing". Read his post and then yours. You're not even arguing the same thing. | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On January 31 2008 21:01 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Work on your reading comprehension. Work on your elitism. Work on your logic. Work on at least trying to keep the same train of arguments in the thread instead of changing your opinion every 10 pages. Work on your manner. Then come talk to me. Because rigth now your bringing nothing to the debate except rabid, incoherent babbling and I think you realise this yourself. If i'm being overly rude i apologize but when someone is saying information about this game that is simply incorrect i wont hesitate to put them in their place. i've done it before and i'll do it again. anyone who thinks medics should be waisting mana restoring vessels after they've irradiated them dosn't know how to play this game. your arguing that progamers can't preform complex micro with specific units becuase the macro burden is too heavy. In actuality many of these abilities arn't cost effective. There's nothing incoherent about my arguments. | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On January 31 2008 11:10 Fuu wrote: MyLostTemple and Frozen. I ask you to read MyLostTemples post about momentum. His argument (simplified) is that because MBS doesnt require the zerg player to return to his hatcheries and take his eye off his army, it makes it easier for him to control his army and preserve his advantage. I ask you to consider wether, given unlimited hotkeys, he would not have that same advantage? No, it's not the same. he has to bind every single hatchery and take the time to make every keystroke. It's more time consuming and another skill the player has to master. More skill sets equals a better esport. | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
On February 01 2008 11:44 MyLostTemple wrote: More skill sets equals a better esport. Not really true. It only depends on how hard it is to advance in the given skill sets, and that the given skill sets are impossible to master for a human. Which means that there's always room for improvement, and pros will always perform it better than others. The problem is: the more skill sets you add, the worse a player will do within each of those sets. Imagine we had even more tasks to do in SC. The game would become more boring actually (except for the players themselves, who are under extreme pressure of course). Nothing that happens on the screen will be impressive. Their macro would be terrible, their micro terrible, and all the other tasks terrible too. And casual gamers would do really horrible. Now some of the pro MBS side feel that SC has evolved to a point where macro has become slightly too important. Someone here made a good point about why micro is always more risky and macro is always more rewarding in SC. Because if you try to micro to save a unit, you might fuck up and lose it none the less. Whereas if you just would have let that unit die and built a new one during that time, you were guaranteed to have that unit "alive again" a few seconds later. This basically means that reducing the macro aspect a little bit (by adding MBS) will lead to a more balanced game, and it will also probably be more impressive for spectators because they'll see more spectacular actions which are impossible in current SC. | ||
|
Phyre
United States1288 Posts
On February 01 2008 13:15 0xDEADBEEF wrote: This basically means that reducing the macro aspect a little bit (by adding MBS) will lead to a more balanced game, and it will also probably be more impressive for spectators because they'll see more spectacular actions which are impossible in current SC. Less macro, more micro = better spectator sport? WC3 was designed to be more micro intensive and all but eliminate macro and it tends to be one of the more boring games to watch in my opinion. Granted there are other factors involved in WC3's lack of spectator allure but I'm saying that more taking out macro and replacing it with micro doesn't necessarily make for a better spectator sport. | ||
|
Meh
Sweden458 Posts
On February 01 2008 11:31 MyLostTemple wrote: If i'm being overly rude i apologize but when someone is saying information about this game that is simply incorrect i wont hesitate to put them in their place. i've done it before and i'll do it again. anyone who thinks medics should be waisting mana restoring vessels after they've irradiated them dosn't know how to play this game. your arguing that progamers can't preform complex micro with specific units becuase the macro burden is too heavy. In actuality many of these abilities arn't cost effective. There's nothing incoherent about my arguments. I thought the idea was to restore vessels who got plagued, not who had irradiated themselves, and restoration for those would imo be something worth wasting and extra pair of medic's mana on. Of course, worth it or not, there is still the issue of not having time to do so. It's been said before, but seeing as how even progamers rarely use presumably cost-efficient abilities (things such as EMP, Hallucination, Feedback, Lockdown, Ensnare etc) simply because they already have too much on their plate, imho if MBS could give them the seconds they need to do it, by all means implement the goddamned thing, would be fun to see at least one TvP out of 10 that consists of more casters than Templars, Arbiters and the very occasional Science Vessel. You don't think hallucinated Zealots soaking up mines and hits are worth a storm? Or 50 mana off a DA to remove the threat of plague or swarm? Surely you are not arguing that Ensnare doesn't rape vs a group of M&Ms or basically a group of anything running the other way? These abilities are cost-efficient in terms of resources (though could be moreso), just not in time spent getting and deploying them. There is not enough time. I love the fast pace in Starcraft, but it's still refreshing when I see Queens, Dark Archons and Ghosts in replays or VODs, and even if whomever uses them ends up losing, I still enjoy watching their games far more than someone who pulls off his thousandth perfectly macroed horde of Tanks, Vultures and Gholiats against someone who pulls off his thousandth perfectly macroed horde of Dragoons, Zealots and Templars or maybe [insert pro here]'s thousandth perfectly macroed horde of Zerglings, Ultralisks and Defilers. I daydream of getting in successful nukes in 1vs1, of locking down Carriers so that they cant flee from my Gholiats and of stealing or instagibbing Ultralisks with Mind Control and Broodling. As it is, I'm too slow to even keep my production going at times, even though knowing that since even pros from Korea can't pull this crap off (even though they live, breathe and masturbate this game) it's pretty obvious that I won't be managing it anytime soon. But if I can't do it by a longshot, it would at least be nice if someone could, but nobody can, partly I would think because they are too busy clicking their fucking factories! | ||
|
BlackSphinx
Canada317 Posts
On February 01 2008 13:35 Phyre wrote: Less macro, more micro = better spectator sport? WC3 was designed to be more micro intensive and all but eliminate macro and it tends to be one of the more boring games to watch in my opinion. Granted there are other factors involved in WC3's lack of spectator allure but I'm saying that more taking out macro and replacing it with micro doesn't necessarily make for a better spectator sport. This does not stem from macro or micro, but the speed of the game and the amount of units. A game with large amount of units, fast, and very good looking tricks will wow spectators. | ||
|
Phyre
United States1288 Posts
 A good number of the spells you listed aren't cost effective as far as I know, thus wouldn't be used even if the players had the attention/time to use them if they wanted to. Hallucination for example I'm fairly sure is far outclassed by storm. Ensnare is very very situation specific and doesn't really justify the cost of a queen in my opinion. You also mention mind control or broodling on Ultras, both of which seem like very poor choices or unlikely situations. Why would you want to MC just one Ultra when you could Maelstrom a group? Also, if you MC you only get 1 then your DA will most likely bite the dust or it will be awhile before it can cast MC again. Broodlings on an Ultra seems an unlikely setup since I don't remember seeing all that many ultras in ZvZ. Someone correct me if I'm wrong there, I don't watch too many ZvZs. I don't think the progamers don't do these fancy maneuvers because they can't. Rather they choose not to for the aforementioned reasons most of the time. | ||
|
Waves
Australia185 Posts
He apparently considers Warp-In to be something that not only rewards skilled players with better results, but that rewards a player for spending extra time on their macro. Note that Warp-In requires you to hotkey and click once for every unit you produce, even though you can select all your warp gates at once using MBS. Perhaps Warp-In is one of the pro-macro features some of you have been hoping for? (Tying the range of Warp-In to pylon power also addresses the territory-independent production concerns raised by BluzMan all those months ago, but that's a topic for another thread.) | ||
|
Phyre
United States1288 Posts
| ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
Take a queen with ensnare for example, in ZvT matchup. The unit is very fragile, and you might not aim correctly. So if you don't hit correctly (aiming might take time, and you don't have enough of it) or the queen dies, it's very bad for you. Your opponent would be ahead immediately, because you have 200 gas less (queen + upgrade. I'm not including queen's nest because you need that anyway because in late game you simply need defilers). Also, we see less and less lurker/ling flanks in pro ZvTs. Instead, pros almost always rush to defilers, using mutas and just a few lurks to buy time (burrow, retreat, burrow, ...). If a queen were viable, then lurker/ling in mid game would be stronger again. There would be 2 options instead of 1. Either you rush to defilers or you have the choice between lurk/ling/queen or defiler rush. In current SC, it seems that only defiler rush is the best option. If the players had more options available, the game would be even more interesting. In any case, regardless of whether this is a good example or not, or if others have made good examples or not. It should be obvious that MBS gives you a few seconds more time for micro, and this time will be used, and then "crazy" strategies (whatever it may be in detail) would be viable, making the game more fun for spectators, and maybe for the players too. Definately for the casual gamers, but probably also for the pros. They just need to think about SC in a different way than before, which can be hard if you've played this for so many years. [edited for a better understanding] | ||
|
InterWill
Sweden117 Posts
On February 01 2008 15:02 Waves wrote: Dustin Browder recently explained the workings of the protoss Warp-In mechanic on the official forums. He apparently considers Warp-In to be something that not only rewards skilled players with better results, but that rewards a player for spending extra time on their macro. Note that Warp-In requires you to hotkey and click once for every unit you produce, even though you can select all your warp gates at once using MBS. Perhaps Warp-In is one of the pro-macro features some of you have been hoping for? (Tying the range of Warp-In to pylon power also addresses the territory-independent production concerns raised by BluzMan all those months ago, but that's a topic for another thread.) This makes sense. With MBS, and units not costing anything to queue up, you can lower the barrier of entry to for lesser players. They just have to select their buildings, queue up a bunch of stuff and can then focus on other things for long periods of time. Of course, skilled players will want to deploy all their units whereever they see fit. However, in order to do so, they must: a) click the required hotkey once per unit b) click deploy once per unit c) time it to the cooldown of the unit (so to not lose time) It's a really clever way of solving some of the problems that a streamlined introduces. Ideally, you want to make macroing as hard for skilled players as it always was, while making it easier for lesser skilled players to lower the barrier of entry. This balance can realistically only be maintained if both have to make some sacrifices. The lesser players can sacrifice the ability to deploy units where they are needed for easier macro. The skilled players can sacrifice easier macro for the ability to deploy their units where they are needed. In practice, this feature isn't really feasible for lesser players since so much time would be spent either waiting for the cooldown or sitting with the cooldown up and not using it. It essentially makes removes the "free unit queue" which was mentioned earlier in this thread, and the downsides would hardly make up for the benefits for a less skilled player. For skilled players, the ability to reinforce your army where you have pylon coverage, regardless of where your gateways are located is worth a ton. If they can use their superior speed and control to achieve this, they will. So, lesser skilled players get MBS and "free" unit queues while skilled players get warpin but have to 1) use more keystrokes per unit and 2) time their production perfectly. Sounds like a fair trade, and a clever idea from Blizzard. | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
On February 01 2008 13:15 0xDEADBEEF wrote: The problem is: the more skill sets you add, the worse a player will do within each of those sets. Imagine we had even more tasks to do in SC. The game would become more boring actually (except for the players themselves, who are under extreme pressure of course). Nothing that happens on the screen will be impressive. Their macro would be terrible, their micro terrible, and all the other tasks terrible too. Impressive is a relative term. Things that few can do are impressive. When everyone can do something, it becomes less impressive. If you look back at starcraft games years ago, youll notice that they arent very impressive. This is due however to the fact that we compare to what people do today not to what people were doing back then. This also is the biggest flaw (IMO) of warcraft 3. Nothing is impressive, because nothing is hard to do. Add MBS and automine, and players running 5 expansions and a keeping their food limit maxed will not be impressive, while it would be now. So macrowise, what can we expect people to do that is impressive? I cannot think of anything. | ||
|
Waves
Australia185 Posts
On February 01 2008 17:15 Fen wrote:So macrowise, what can we expect people to do that is impressive? I cannot think of anything. How about really excellent use of Warp-In? See my post above for extra context about Warp-In. Now, Warp-In may not be enough by itself (certainly not by your standards, I would assume), but Blizzard did say they were trying to come up with ways to reward time spent on macro as well. For all we know, the mechanics of Warp-In is just the first of those things they've mentioned. | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
When I heard about the warp-in, I thought the cooldown timer was going to be the same for all protoss buildings (not the teleporting part). Does anyone else think that that would be a cooler way to distinguish between building styles of the 3 races? | ||
|
Waves
Australia185 Posts
On February 01 2008 17:52 Fen wrote: Warp-In isnt bad, but I dont see it being all that much different from the way we use buildings at the moment. So periods of oldschool macro is not really something that can compensate. Im not condemming the game just yet, Im just voicing concern. Well I gather that good players use Warp-In full time once they have the tech for it (weaker players can't keep up with the click rate and attention). So it's not just periods of it, it's most of the game. It might even require much more view-switching than old-style macro, since instead of just going back to look at you gateways all grouped together, you might be actively trying to warp in units to three different places around the map. On February 01 2008 17:52 Fen wrote:When I heard about the warp-in, I thought the cooldown timer was going to be the same for all protoss buildings (not the teleporting part). Does anyone else think that that would be a cooler way to distinguish between building styles of the 3 races? What do you mean by that? That protoss units should pop out very quickly when built, but that the building then goes into a cooldown phase during which it can't build anything? It's sort of interesting, but I think it would be too hard for weaker protoss players to cope with. It would mean they had no build queues. | ||
| ||
