|
the whole argument against MBS is that starcraft is at the optimum skill level: a perfect mix of repetitive, basic actions with complicated, strategic actions. I think these are some points often cited:
point 1: Micro is AS repetitive and irritating as Macro
point 2: SC is at perfect level of multitasking vs repetitive actions
point 3: Starcraft can either be played almost entirely micro (boxer) or almost entirely macro (nada)
The general desire is for blizzard to add to the game, but not take away the game's previous identity. Put in new units, new techniques and new terrain, and customizable hotkeys, but don't f*ck with the good stuff!
All this cr4p about strategy + micro being focused on. Strategy + micro are already focused on...some people entirely neglect macro ANYWAY, and still be very competitive!
F*ck this cr*p about realism, f*ck this cr*p about making units think for themselves:
Why wouldn't your logic just lead every single unit to micro itself? Takes some damage? Runs away! Sees an enemy it counters in a big group, targets that enemy!
The reason that no good competitive game has been made on decision making alone is that decision making is f*cking p*ss easy.
|
lol, anti-MBS people can't micro? What a stupid and ignorant comment.
Actually, generally pro-MBS people can't multitask. They can't use hotkeys and have low APM. Also, they claim the game should be more about strategy. But generally, they don't even know the most basic strategy.
They don't even know what they want to take out of the game. They don't know what it means to macro with 150 APM while a battle is going on as well after just having given the basic micro at the start of the battle.
|
On February 04 2008 04:34 1esu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2008 08:55 maybenexttime wrote:
The same can be said about micro. Why can't I tell my units to retreat (e.g. to my main) at below 50% health like in Dark Reign 2? Why can't I simply press "x" for 'scatter' to avoid Lurker spines? Why do I have to manually tell my units to attack the units they counter best and those which have the least health? Why can't I just press a-move on the ground to do that?
Where do we draw a line?
edit: Also why shouldn't they introduce auto-production of units like in Age of Mythology? Maybe some players find telling their Gates to produce more Zealots every time the production of units they queued finishes "tedious"? Why do I have to pay for a unit the moment I queue it up? Why can't I pay for it the moment my Gate starts training it? This makes just as much sense as SBS or being unable to hotkey multiple structures with MBS... As I and others after me have repeated time and time again, the line is drawn where the player makes a decision. Telling your units to retreat is a decision. Telling your units who to attack is a decision. Telling your gates when and what to produce is a decision. Queueing a unit is a decision, and the game makes it an interesting one by making you pay for it ahead of time. Scattering is a bunch of small decisions on where to retreat your marines so that they avoid the lurker spines, as opposed to a single retreat decision which would get your marines torn up. With macro-mechanics, the player makes a single decision to build x units out of y buildings, but the number of clicks needed is 2y. Compared to the number of decision-click ratio of the above example, this clearly can and should be improved upon. The "attention gap" that results can be filled with macro-mechanical elements that require decisions.
And if I want my Zealots retreat everytime they're below, say, 50% health - that's definitely ONE decision, yet I have to issue that command EVERY SINGLE TIME. This is just as tedious...
"Telling your gates when and what to produce is a decision." - analogically, telling your Zealots to move-attack sieged Tanks 3 per each Tank is ONE decision, yet it still requires TONS of actions to get it done properly. Despite that fact we don't see pro-MBS crowd objecting it's stupid and should be fixed...
As for paying for units ahead of time, why don't you find it tedious to go back to your production buildings everytime you want to queue a next unit even though you know for sure you want to continue training this specific units for, say, 5 next minutes? Why isn't THAT tedious?
And as for scattering Marines, why should they go to one place when issued one command?
|
On February 04 2008 06:01 BlackStar wrote:
lol, anti-MBS people can't micro? What a stupid and ignorant comment.
Actually, generally pro-MBS people can't multitask. They can't use hotkeys and have low APM. Also, they claim the game should be more about strategy. But generally, they don't even know the most basic strategy.
They don't even know what they want to take out of the game. They don't know what it means to macro with 150 APM while a battle is going on as well after just having given the basic micro at the start of the battle.
Were you talking to me??? Re-read my post if you were.
|
On February 04 2008 06:01 BlackStar wrote:
lol, anti-MBS people can't micro? What a stupid and ignorant comment.
Actually, generally pro-MBS people can't multitask. They can't use hotkeys and have low APM. Also, they claim the game should be more about strategy. But generally, they don't even know the most basic strategy.
They don't even know what they want to take out of the game. They don't know what it means to macro with 150 APM while a battle is going on as well after just having given the basic micro at the start of the battle.
Honestly, you should know better than attacking the people making the arguments instead of the arguments themselves.
Actually Yahtzee has summed up my fears for SC2 in the comments about the unintuitive nature of The Witcher
The Review
I could almost hear him say: "...that the dirty casual peasants don´t ruin it for the glorious SC-Pro Master Race..."
|
Good. Cuz dirty casual peasants smell.
We are GLORIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
On February 04 2008 08:53 Unentschieden wrote:
I could almost hear him say: "...that the dirty casual peasants don´t ruin it for the glorious SC-Pro Master Race..."
That is exactly my sentiment. I am not even joking either.
|
Calgary25997 Posts
I deleted a few stupid posts in here that brought nothing new to the table, or had vague arguments with no evidence.
|
On February 04 2008 04:07 1esu wrote:
My point was that whether it was 1 or 10 gateways, the player would still conceive of building a wave of zealots from all of their gateways as one task, requiring one decision, but requiring an increasingly larger number of clicks to execute. For example, the player doesn't think "I have to build one zealot" 10 times in a row, they think "I have to build 10 zealots out of my gates". On the other hand, with 170 supply micro, each of the actions you describe are conceived as separate tasks, requiring separate decisions for each one, so each task is completed in about 1-3 clicks. The thought process is "I have to retreat that zealot", "I have to reorganize my goons", "I have to unload that shuttle before it dies", "I have to stasis that tank". Therefore, the decision-click ratio is increasingly higher with macro-mechanics than micro as you deal with larger numbers. And that's inefficient, since the goal of the UI is to minimize the number of clicks required to execute a decision.
.
My point was that both micro and macro require more than two clicks, and micro actually requires more, so the number of clicks per unit time or whatever isnt a fair way to judge their importance at all.
Yes, the play thinks of macroing once, then has to click ten gates and build a unit in each. So the thought to action ratio is 1:20. Now lets consider micro. I think ONCE, "hey I'm going to attack this terran contain". For micro to be fair, I should be able to execute my plans with two clicks, ie 1a. Yet it isnt so. When my shuttle goes in and flies over turrets without unloading, it dies, simply because my army is just too big for me to control perfectly. My thought was obviously that the shuttle should drop its lots on tank clumps, yet it doesnt happen unless I manually do it. Whats worse, I'm controlling my entire army like that. I sure didnt think "I will attack with this unit" for each unit - I only thought about it ONCE, just like macro.
The break up of decision making is pointless. Macro requires a ton of decisions too. When to expand, when to tech, when to upgrade, what unit mix to make, when to put down gates, how to place gates, when in a battle to go back to macro, etc. The purpose of the game is to create a balance of micro and macro, is it not? Since these are essentially different parameters, you cannot make a quality for quality comparison of the two. What macro does is stress the player, just like micro does, into playing faster and making decisions quickly. And it stresses the player by requiring skill, by knowing when to put down gates, by knowing how to place them, by knowing when to leave a fight to go back to macro, blah blah.
And the "goal" of the UI is DEFINITELY NOT to minimize the number of clicks required to play. The goal is to find a BALANCE, where the game is easy to learn, hard to master, most fun, and most likely to be played for a long time. If the goal is to minimize the number of clicks per task, I assure you, Blizzard could do a lot more.
When I start a starcraft game, I think one thought "I'm going to win". Sadly, two clicks doesnt accomplish this.
|
On February 04 2008 04:34 1esu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2008 08:55 maybenexttime wrote:
The same can be said about micro. Why can't I tell my units to retreat (e.g. to my main) at below 50% health like in Dark Reign 2? Why can't I simply press "x" for 'scatter' to avoid Lurker spines? Why do I have to manually tell my units to attack the units they counter best and those which have the least health? Why can't I just press a-move on the ground to do that?
Where do we draw a line?
edit: Also why shouldn't they introduce auto-production of units like in Age of Mythology? Maybe some players find telling their Gates to produce more Zealots every time the production of units they queued finishes "tedious"? Why do I have to pay for a unit the moment I queue it up? Why can't I pay for it the moment my Gate starts training it? This makes just as much sense as SBS or being unable to hotkey multiple structures with MBS... As I and others after me have repeated time and time again, the line is drawn where the player makes a decision. Telling your units to retreat is a decision. Telling your units who to attack is a decision. Telling your gates when and what to produce is a decision. Queueing a unit is a decision, and the game makes it an interesting one by making you pay for it ahead of time. Scattering is a bunch of small decisions on where to retreat your marines so that they avoid the lurker spines, as opposed to a single retreat decision which would get your marines torn up. With macro-mechanics, the player makes a single decision to build x units out of y buildings, but the number of clicks needed is 2y. Compared to the number of decision-click ratio of the above example, this clearly can and should be improved upon. The "attention gap" that results can be filled with macro-mechanical elements that require decisions.
The guy you responded to is right. When the game starts, I make the decision I will make units. There should be an "auto produce" button that, when pressed, auto macros for me. I already made the decision to macro, so I shouldnt have to click more than twice during the course of the game to accomplish that.
But of course, this is not what you want. What you want is MBS, so that periodically during the game, you have to REPEAT your clicks to macro. Hence you yourself are a proponent of repetitive actions - I mean, is there any video game on the planet that isnt repetitive at least in some way? Since you yourself support repetitive actions, its obvious that you are arguing about what we are arguing: the correct balance between macro and micro.
The ideas of "I made one decision, why cant I execute it with two clicks" is similarly pointless. It all depends on where you take the cut off for your decision making. I could say, for example, that macroing off ten gates requires separate sub-decisions for each gate - I have to choose what unit mix to make, after all. Or I could go farther back than you, and say that in the game room, before we click start, I decide to make units. Why cannot I accomplish macro over the entire game with just two clicks in the start? After all, that was my decision.
This entire line of thought makes absolutely no sense, and I dont know why you keep arguing about it. Starcraft sure as hell isnt going to be a "realistic" game, if thats what you want. I am sure what we all, and Blizzard, wants out of SC2 is:
1) FUN game
2) easy to learn, hard to master ==> increases game life
3) retain all the core elements of starcraft, which no other rts has, and which is why they are all vastly inferior
Its irrelevant how much one has to click for micro or macro or blah blah, whats important is the balance between the two, because that creates the atmosphere unique to starcraft games. With macro requiring 2 clicks per minute, that atmosphere will be gone. We will sit with our armies, ever ready, for an attack, during which we can micro with no worries about having to macro as well.
So please, lets stop arguing about whats realistic or not, or where the cut off for decision making analysis lies, and try to talk about what will make the game more FUN, live longer, and replace starcraft on the pro circuit. Try to support MBS in the light of these factors, please. Argue how MBS implementation would make the game more fun, or be more readily accepted on the pro scene, or last ten years (till SC3 comes out).
And you still havent told me why hurt zealots in a mass army dont move back when they are hurt. The blizzard story line makes it abundantly clear they are living creatures. I suspect gateways are an imperfect technology, and for some reasons, their brains get left behind. What do you think? Why dont armies micro themselves? Why do we have to do it? Its RTS, I should be focusing on strategy, not micro, wtf.
|
Pulling back is a decision. There are many cases where I want my Zealots to fight until their dying breath for Auir. Either they're going to get that last hit on the tank or pull the mine towards the enemy, and I don't care how many of them I lose. They are not cowards, they are the sternest Protoss warriors, ready to lay down their lives with no hesitation. The Excecutor's orders are the executor's orders, even when he's wrong. That pretty much covers it from a realism stand point.
From a game stand point, it would be really annoying to have your injured zealot change course dragging a mine to your army instead of the enemy.
Really, the main point here is that micro is a skill the requires finesse timing and decision making. Should I pull this zealot back or this? There is certainly a gross handskill required in micro, but that's something that no anti-MBSer should have a problem with (which, clearly you don't). The repetative task of gateway clicking has no finesse, little timing and is the multi-click execution of a single decision.
Frankly, I find your whole argument disingenuous. You're trying to equivocate micro and macro and it just doesn't work.
Factors in micro: unit position, relative unit health, unit counters, unit numbers, terrain considerations, special abilities, timing.
Factors in macro: unit mix, money available, unit counters. Of the listed factors, MBS effects nothing in macro. It merely effects the number of clicks required to turn a decision into reality.
Micro is far too complicated and decision heavy for it to ever be automated.
|
Gandalf you dont know anything about the protoss mentality.
|
On February 04 2008 16:37 HunterGatherer wrote:
Gandalf you dont know anything about the protoss mentality.
lol, QFT
|
On February 04 2008 16:11 GeneralStan wrote:
Pulling back is a decision. There are many cases where I want my Zealots to fight until their dying breath for Auir. Either they're going to get that last hit on the tank or pull the mine towards the enemy, and I don't care how many of them I lose. They are not cowards, they are the sternest Protoss warriors, ready to lay down their lives with no hesitation. The Excecutor's orders are the executor's orders, even when he's wrong. That pretty much covers it from a realism stand point.
From a game stand point, it would be really annoying to have your injured zealot change course dragging a mine to your army instead of the enemy.
Really, the main point here is that micro is a skill the requires finesse timing and decision making. Should I pull this zealot back or this? There is certainly a gross handskill required in micro, but that's something that no anti-MBSer should have a problem with (which, clearly you don't). The repetative task of gateway clicking has no finesse, little timing and is the multi-click execution of a single decision.
Frankly, I find your whole argument disingenuous. You're trying to equivocate micro and macro and it just doesn't work.
Factors in micro: unit position, relative unit health, unit counters, unit numbers, terrain considerations, special abilities, timing.
Factors in macro: unit mix, money available, unit counters. Of the listed factors, MBS effects nothing in macro. It merely effects the number of clicks required to turn a decision into reality.
Micro is far too complicated and decision heavy for it to ever be automated.
This post reeks of lack of understanding about macro in starcraft. Along with about 90% of other posts made by pro-MBS'ers. Call it elitism or whatever you want. The simple fact is that most of you are completely unaware of what you are calling repetaive, or dull or boring etc. You just theorycraft about a situations when you've never actually been in them. Theres a reason that the better starcraft players are against MBS and it isnt because they are scared of losing.
Micro and Macro in starcraft were equal. They are both minigames in themselves, each being relatively easy and repetative by themselves. But together they create a dynamic game of multitasking between the two. Prioritising your attention between two. Adding strategical desicions that add soo many possibilties to the game. You are constantly in a decision making process where you are asking yourself, 'should I be macroing or microing right now?'. The answer to that question is not always black or white, unlike most decisions made in RTS games. Players have the option to be unique and have their own styles. By implementing MBS, you remove most of the macro minigame. There will no longer be macro and micro players, only micro players. There will no longer be the constant dilemma of whether your attention should be focussed in macro or micro, that will be decided for you. Your choices become much more black and white. And most importantly, the game will become boring. Neither macro or micro are interesting by themselves. Its only when you are forced to handle them both at the same time do they become an exciting experience.
|
On February 04 2008 16:55 GeneralStan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2008 16:37 HunterGatherer wrote:
Gandalf you dont know anything about the protoss mentality. lol, QFT
I'll bet that felt like a nice triumphant win for you.
|
Actually Gandalf from your reasons I conclude that Starcraft should NOT add MBS.
It just makes it like all the other little games. I mean so much about starcraft's survival comes from the different avenues you can go down: not just strategy but also focusing different ratios on micro/macro. If you make macros easier you are just cutting these paths down, homogenizing...it's important for everything to get that word into their head, because for anti-MBS we DESPERATELY don't want the excellent brand of starcraft to be homogenized and become another 'don't worry I'll do everything for you' game. Because cnc3 and aoe3 are letdowns and noobish compared to sc.
The difference between pro SC and pro aoe3 etc is like the difference between pro footballers (soccer) and pro tiddlywinkers. Both require talent, just football has more options to be good.
|
Guess we are back at the starting point then.
Micro an Macro in RTS are not equall and they shouldn´t be. They are supposed to be completely different on the task they require from the player.
There is no question right now if I should I be "macroing or microing", the answer is always "Macro as much as possible". How much is possible depends on the player.
Paradoxically, if Micro and Macro are equall Macro is better. The time spend in Macro and Micro needs to be equally "rewarded", by figuring in the risk difference. Then choosing is actually a desicion.
The difference between "Micro-Players" and "Macro-Players" is currently to small, seen simply by the fact that I don´t see any. There is enough of a difference when even casual observers can see it. The only one being recognizablefrom the rest is propably Boxer since he isn´t afraid to take risks and "show off", making desicions that are stupid in a strict gaming sense (actually smart if tournament price money isn´t your only income).
Edit On HamerD: See SC play has evolved and has now arrived at a point where it is hard to tell the players apart. Even Boxer had to improve his Macro in the last years to stay competative. Boxer is not (only) focusing on Micro becaus that is the best strategy but (also) because that is what his fans want to see - and he knows that it is, in the end, THEM where he gets his money.
On the point of action/click number I won´t write more since I would repeat GeneralStans post on that topic.
|
On February 04 2008 16:11 GeneralStan wrote:
Pulling back is a decision. There are many cases where I want my Zealots to fight until their dying breath for Auir. Either they're going to get that last hit on the tank or pull the mine towards the enemy, and I don't care how many of them I lose. They are not cowards, they are the sternest Protoss warriors, ready to lay down their lives with no hesitation. The Excecutor's orders are the executor's orders, even when he's wrong. That pretty much covers it from a realism stand point.
From a game stand point, it would be really annoying to have your injured zealot change course dragging a mine to your army instead of the enemy.
Really, the main point here is that micro is a skill the requires finesse timing and decision making. Should I pull this zealot back or this? There is certainly a gross handskill required in micro, but that's something that no anti-MBSer should have a problem with (which, clearly you don't). The repetative task of gateway clicking has no finesse, little timing and is the multi-click execution of a single decision.
Frankly, I find your whole argument disingenuous. You're trying to equivocate micro and macro and it just doesn't work.
Factors in micro: unit position, relative unit health, unit counters, unit numbers, terrain considerations, special abilities, timing.
Factors in macro: unit mix, money available, unit counters. Of the listed factors, MBS effects nothing in macro. It merely effects the number of clicks required to turn a decision into reality.
Micro is far too complicated and decision heavy for it to ever be automated.
Macroing is also decision making, and heavily so. There are many cases where I want to pump zealots. There are many cases when I want dragoons, or a mix of zealots and dragoons. When I want to mix, I have to decide on a ratio. There are many cases where I will macro off some gates and skip a couple just to get an expansion up. Or to put up cannons, or upgrade, or whatever. From a game stand point, it is really exciting to have so much decision making along with a reasonable amount of clicking to macro well while you are engaged in fights. Its the duality of macro - the mental AND physical demands of it - that make it so interesting. From a game stand point, if they took all this out, I'd be left standing with my army 99% of the time - as will my opponent. This will not only take out macro, it will also lessen the gap between micro skills (read the time is a resource post), AND it will diminish the importance of being aware of the minimap at all times.
Micro can definitely be automated. I dont know why you say micro is "too" complicated to be automated. Space shuttles, for example, are heavily automated. I'm quite sure it is possible to automate micro in sc2. Its a video game, after all! Whats more, the degree of perfection of this automated micro doesnt matter a lot - because the computer will micro both armies, hence its fair. So in this new SC2, I will macro by clicking 4d, then attack by clicking 1a-left click. Then I'll get me some chicken wings and watch as my brutally repetitve 5 actions (which are repetitive cuz I have to do them once every 10 minutes) play out as a massive battle and I feast myself to pretty graphics.
Video games will always have repetitive actions. Actually, I think pretty much everything on the planet can be accused of that. When you pull back a zealot, you use your mouse to select it, then right click away. Irrespective of the decision making behind pulling that zealot, the action by itself is REPETITIVE. So what we are questioning is not the repetitive nature of tasks, but on the decision making behind it, and the fun aspect of it, and ofcourse, how it will make the game competitive and long lasting.
From a decision making stand point, macro is just as intense as micro. Actually, in many ways, more so. Macro decisions can often decide the result of games. You said, "Really, the main point here is that micro is a skill the requires finesse timing and decision making". What you missed is that macro requires all of these as well. Any good player will tell you macro needs finesse timing and decision making.
"MBS effects nothing in macro." ==> What?? You have every person here, in this thread, saying it WILL. The fact that this thread got so long prove the contrary. The discussion isnt if it will or not, its how it will change the game, and whether MBS is better or worse in the long run. Saying it wont change anything is just plain stupid. If MBS wont change anything, then why have it? Let SC2 be without it! We're all discussing how to make SC2 a better game. If the addition or deletion of a certain feature doesnt change SC2 in the least bit, why discuss it at all??
Different games have different tastes. Of all the RTS games, and I really do mean ALL of them, only Starcraft creates an atmosphere during games that is really tense. This is one of the thing that rivets spectators to it, and macro being implement as it has plays a BIG role in that.
The talk of repetitive actions, of realism, of tedious tasks is all pointlessly stupid. You've failed to address any of the real questions: HOW will the inclusion of MBS make the game more fun, make the skill range larger, make the game competitive, make the game so interesting to watch that it will last 10 years as an esport, and so on.
|
|
|
On February 04 2008 20:15 Unentschieden wrote:
Guess we are back at the starting point then.
Yup, once again. All for nothing here.
To quote a post from me on another site:
I'm all for something new, with little resemblance of the old game. (Which would have the added benefit of not really killing SC1, because both could co-exist)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
