|
More on the clickfest.
If I make the decision (ONE) that my Zealots should move near the sieged Tanks and then attack them three per each one of them, I will need to make tons of clicks to carry this plan out properly. Otherwise, if I just make just two (drag-select & attack-move) actions (as simple a task as pro-MBS crowd wants macro to be), they will randomly attack enemy units on their path to the Tanks.
Therefore, I demand this very same rule applies to macro as well. Using two actions to issue macro orders should make your Gateways queue units randomly - just as in the Zealots example! After all, it makes PERFECT SENSE! E.g. by pressing 'Z' 10 times, while having selected 10 Gateways, one should end up with, say, 1 Zealots in two Gateway, 3 in another two, and 2 in yet another one - the rest would stay idle.
Or let's take a slightly different approach. Let's say you make the decision to create 20 Zealots in 10 Gateways. Obviously you're not making the decision to create 2 Zealots a Gateway, since that would require extra clicks - just as ordering your Zealot to move & then attack separate Tanks! Instead, you should end up queuing 5 Zealots in 4 out of your 10 Gateways.
|
A-Attack isn´t random, they attack the next unit in their path. Really that argument is weak.
MBS will have the same effect on the gameplay Queuing had - a lot easier for the new players and effectivly no change for proffesionals. That´s how the game will be more fun. More players will be interested, making it more competative. And if you want spectators, do you even know what they want to see? Take a look at the SClegacys "pimpest plays". VODs of pros going through 20 Gateways under one sec aren´t there.
I hate the appearant lack of reading comprehension. I argue for less interaction redundance and suddenly I´m accused of trying to automate everything! If you can´t deal with one of my arguments acnowledge it or leave it but don´t turn it into something more suited to your argumentation.
|
On February 05 2008 00:01 Unentschieden wrote:
A-Attack isn´t random, they attack the next unit in their path. Really that argument is weak.
MBS will have the same effect on the gameplay Queuing had - a lot easier for the new players and effectivly no change for proffesionals. That´s how the game will be more fun. More players will be interested, making it more competative. And if you want spectators, do you even know what they want to see? Take a look at the SClegacys "pimpest plays". VODs of pros going through 20 Gateways under one sec aren´t there.
I hate the appearant lack of reading comprehension. I argue for less interaction redundance and suddenly I´m accused of trying to automate everything! If you can´t deal with one of my arguments acnowledge it or leave it but don´t turn it into something more suited to your argumentation.
FFS, I was simplifying... Of course, it's not. But why does the UI have to be so limiting that I can't order my Zealots to avoid any units on their path to Siege Tanks & attack them separately with just two clicks? Isn't that what you're asking for in case of MBS & macro? After all, what I want to accomplish with my Zealots is only ONE decision...
And how will MBS have no effect on professional play? That's just blatantly ignorant and stupid! We've proven times and times again that it will. Oh, and it's sure as hell that simplifying the game will make it more competitive. How could I have not noticed that before? It's so obvious! (Notice the sarcasm.)
Again, answer my question as to why can't ordering my Zealots to attack Siege Tanks separately while avoiding other enemy units be less "redudant" and less "tedious" - it's ONE decision. Can't you?
As for Pimpest Plays and stuff, I'm sure you realize most of this stuff wouldn't be even considered above average, not to mention "spectacular", when the only thing the player was concerned with was microing his precious Ghosts or whatever. The reason why they're so hyped is the fact that players such as e.g. Boxer accomp-lish such micro feats while playing such a demanding game.
|
Actually, to be exact you make 3 desicions when attacking Tanks-
WHO (the zealots, ~1 click to select them)
WHAT (attacking)
WHERE (the tanks, can be considered ~1 click together with WHAT if you click them directly)
To have them ignore the other units you either don´t use a-attack or need to plan a evasion route for them.
Why can´t producing units be just as efficient? SBS feels like having to tell each single Zealot to attack seperately.
But that brings little to the discussion. I seem to have missed the proof that MBS will simplify the game in competative play. How often do you see homogenous and synchronized production there?
The "PP" issue wasn´t about why they are so great but what they show. For observers Macro is completely irrelevant. Why isn´t there a PP about how a player manages to pump out more SCVs than his enemy (even under extreme pressue)?
|
And this is exactly what you do - you tell each Zealot to attack separately... Also, no, it's still one decision, unless you consider ordering 20 Gateways to produce 20 Zealots to be 20 separate decisions, which in this case justifies SBS...
"To have them ignore the other units you either don´t use a-attack or need to plan a evasion route for them." - this is exactly what I'm talking about. Using pro-MBS crowd twisted logic, I should be able to tell them to attack Tanks separately with 2 clicks: TANKS, NOT OTHER UNITS - that's one decision...
Obviously you've never played StarCraft or you're just so incompetent that you need MBS to ease the pain...
|
Not using a-attack IS 2 clicks.
Attacking the Tanks: 1 desicion.
Attacking with zealots: 2nd desicion (that is all it takes for a normal attack)
avoiding other units: 3rd desicion
how to avoid: additional desicions.
Don´t underestimated the effort it actually takes to get something done. In normal life that is no issue but it is integral when designing a UI - computers are dumb.
MBS removing depht has been stated countless times but I can´t remeber any example that actually proves that.
|
To Gandalf: I agree mostly with the content of your post. Just don't put words in my mouth. The full quote reads: "Of the listed factors, MBS affects nothing in macro". Of course MBS affects macro.
To Fen: You're a damn decent bloke, and I find you to be the clearest and most reasonable voice on the Anti-MBS side. I think though that Macro has proved more important in the long run the Micro, since producing 10 marines is usually more effecient than microing to save one poor guy's life (unless your name is NaDa <3). I disagree also with the statement that micro isn't interesting on it's own. I find micro absolutely fascinating, but I hate Warcraft 3. Namely because Micro should be quick and bloody and one mistake should mean your force gets decimated. But that's kinda random.
Basically I agree with you that Multi-tasking and full attention are crucial to Starcraft, that decision whether to Micro or Macro is a core aspect of the game.
However, MBS doesn't affect the substantive decision making of Macro. There isn't a decision that MBS is changing, it isn't any of the strategic macro decisions that are impacted. This however doesn't mean that it isn't important, far from it in fact. Though the clicking in unit production is repetitive with little strategic value, it's mere presence makes multi-tasking valuable and requires the decision between unit managment and unit production.
Basically my argument boils down to "MBS doesn't affect decision making, but reptitive clickinng that is important to the multitasking nature of Starcraft". I'm not really pro-MBS, I just want to get the facts straight.
On February 05 2008 00:50 maybenexttime wrote:
And this is exactly what you do - you tell each Zealot to attack separately... Also, no, it's still one decision, unless you consider ordering 20 Gateways to produce 20 Zealots to be 20 separate decisions, which in this case justifies SBS...
"To have them ignore the other units you either don´t use a-attack or need to plan a evasion route for them." - this is exactly what I'm talking about. Using pro-MBS crowd twisted logic, I should be able to tell them to attack Tanks separately with 2 clicks: TANKS, NOT OTHER UNITS - that's one decision...
Obviously you've never played StarCraft or you're just so incompetent that you need MBS to ease the pain...
This is the single worst argument I've heard in anti-MBS history. You make a non-sensial argument attempting to equivocate micro and macro, an argument that was defunct a page back, but you continue vehemently insisting that it's valid. Give me a break.
"Using pro-MBS crowd twisted logic". Great! Attack yourself a straw man.
"Obviously you've never played StarCraft or you're just so incompetent" Great! Ad-hominem attacks are my favorite.
Honestly, we're should be having a constructive discussion about MBS, not this lurid flamefest Take a deep breath and follow the Ten Commandments. Think before your post. Personal attacks and angrily trumpeting ludicrious arguments helps nobody.
As far as your stupid argument goes, Micro =/= macro. You've cherry picked one example where the correct micro decision is "obvious". Some times I want my zealots to attack just the front tank. Some times I don't even want them to engage, I want them to run through the line. There are no obvious decisions in micro, especially as simple as the deciison to reptitively click your gateways.
You might argue that a UI could be designed that allows for more micro automation (ala Dark Reign 2). But the essence of Blizzard UIs is their simplicity. MBS is a simple addition. Formations, a scatter button and attacking three zealots per tank aren't UI options that jump out as obvious. I think we can agree that more UI isn't better.
Lets do a little give and take now.
I'll give you: MBS does impact macro and full-map multitasking
You give me: Micro is nothing like macro, and MBS doesn't effect the substantive decision making of macro.
|
On February 05 2008 01:00 Unentschieden wrote:
Not using a-attack IS 2 clicks.
Attacking the Tanks: 1 desicion.
Attacking with zealots: 2nd desicion (that is all it takes for a normal attack)
avoiding other units: 3rd desicion
how to avoid: additional desicions.
Don´t underestimated the effort it actually takes to get something done. In normal life that is no issue but it is integral when designing a UI - computers are dumb.
MBS removing depht has been stated countless times but I can´t remeber any example that actually proves that.
WOW, such ignorance. You obviously are noob at toss... Attacking tanks with zealots is only one decision. As to how it's done, it's decided a priori - any competent toss knows exactly HOW to do that, there's no decision making there, so you better stop making stuff up...
Analogically, I can say that:
- making more units: 1 decision,
- deciding what unit to create at 1st gate: 1 desicion,
- deciding to create another unit in your next gate instead of the already selected one: 1 decision,
- deciding what unit to create at 2nd gate: 1 desicion,
- deciding to create another unit in your next gate instead of the already selected one: 1 decision,
- deciding what unit to create at 3rd gate: 1 desicion,
- deciding to create another unit in your next gate instead of the already selected one: 1 decision,
- deciding what unit to create at 4th gate: 1 desicion,
- deciding to create another unit in your next gate instead of the already selected one: 1 decision,
- deciding what unit to create at 5th gate: 1 desicion,
- deciding to create another unit in your next gate instead of the already selected one: 1 decision,
- deciding what unit to create at 6th gate: 1 desicion,
- deciding to create another unit in your next gate instead of the already selected one: 1 decision,
...
- deciding what unit to create at 20th gate: 1 desicion,
Arguing you is pointless...
Read the topic instead of telling us to repeat our points, or simply leave this discussing because the way you argue things is just STUPID. Sorry, but someone has to state the obvious.
|
Great post GeneralStan, I agree completely.
I have to admit that over arguing what is a desicion and what not I lost the initial point. The primary message was that 1:1 desicion action relationship would not tire players with redundant operations. Did you know that in times long past clicks were not context sensitive? You always had to state if it was a movement order or a attack order.
Overall I see the actuall effect of MBS the same as the effect Queues had - did they destroy the gameplay? Compared to not queuing up you don´t have to worry about the next 5 units - omg macro is gone. We had the EXACT same discussion back from WC2 to SC.
|
On February 05 2008 03:16 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2008 01:00 Unentschieden wrote:
Not using a-attack IS 2 clicks.
Attacking the Tanks: 1 desicion.
Attacking with zealots: 2nd desicion (that is all it takes for a normal attack)
avoiding other units: 3rd desicion
how to avoid: additional desicions.
Don´t underestimated the effort it actually takes to get something done. In normal life that is no issue but it is integral when designing a UI - computers are dumb.
MBS removing depht has been stated countless times but I can´t remeber any example that actually proves that. WOW, such ignorance. You obviously are noob at toss... Attacking tanks with zealots is only one decision. As to how it's done, it's decided a priori - any competent toss knows exactly HOW to do that, there's no decision making there, so you better stop making stuff up... Analogically, I can say that: - making more units: 1 decision, - deciding what unit to create at 1st gate: 1 desicion, - deciding to create another unit in your next gate instead of the already selected one: 1 decision, - deciding what unit to create at 2nd gate: 1 desicion, - deciding to create another unit in your next gate instead of the already selected one: 1 decision, - deciding what unit to create at 3rd gate: 1 desicion, - deciding to create another unit in your next gate instead of the already selected one: 1 decision, - deciding what unit to create at 4th gate: 1 desicion, - deciding to create another unit in your next gate instead of the already selected one: 1 decision, - deciding what unit to create at 5th gate: 1 desicion, - deciding to create another unit in your next gate instead of the already selected one: 1 decision, - deciding what unit to create at 6th gate: 1 desicion, - deciding to create another unit in your next gate instead of the already selected one: 1 decision, ... - deciding what unit to create at 20th gate: 1 desicion, Arguing you is pointless... Read the topic instead of telling us to repeat our points, or simply leave this discussing because the way you argue things is just STUPID. Sorry, but someone has to state the obvious.
And then you realise, using MBS you cant produce what you want in all 20, you just get all doing the same order. Thats exactly the same thing as telling 20 zealots to attack 1 tank or a-moving them inot the enemy lines, its better to micro them induvidually but the UI give you the option to do the job half assed wich is needed when the armies get bigger.
Ordering 20 zealots to attack 1 tank is one decision, that we all know, and by the same note ordering 20 gateways to build 1 zealot each is also one decision. Although pro players will click "5z" every 2 seconds to get a continious stream of zealots rather than wait for the money to pile up.
|
On February 05 2008 03:53 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2008 03:16 maybenexttime wrote:On February 05 2008 01:00 Unentschieden wrote:
Not using a-attack IS 2 clicks.
Attacking the Tanks: 1 desicion.
Attacking with zealots: 2nd desicion (that is all it takes for a normal attack)
avoiding other units: 3rd desicion
how to avoid: additional desicions.
Don´t underestimated the effort it actually takes to get something done. In normal life that is no issue but it is integral when designing a UI - computers are dumb.
MBS removing depht has been stated countless times but I can´t remeber any example that actually proves that. WOW, such ignorance. You obviously are noob at toss... Attacking tanks with zealots is only one decision. As to how it's done, it's decided a priori - any competent toss knows exactly HOW to do that, there's no decision making there, so you better stop making stuff up... Analogically, I can say that: - making more units: 1 decision, - deciding what unit to create at 1st gate: 1 desicion, - deciding to create another unit in your next gate instead of the already selected one: 1 decision, - deciding what unit to create at 2nd gate: 1 desicion, - deciding to create another unit in your next gate instead of the already selected one: 1 decision, - deciding what unit to create at 3rd gate: 1 desicion, - deciding to create another unit in your next gate instead of the already selected one: 1 decision, - deciding what unit to create at 4th gate: 1 desicion, - deciding to create another unit in your next gate instead of the already selected one: 1 decision, - deciding what unit to create at 5th gate: 1 desicion, - deciding to create another unit in your next gate instead of the already selected one: 1 decision, - deciding what unit to create at 6th gate: 1 desicion, - deciding to create another unit in your next gate instead of the already selected one: 1 decision, ... - deciding what unit to create at 20th gate: 1 desicion, Arguing you is pointless... Read the topic instead of telling us to repeat our points, or simply leave this discussing because the way you argue things is just STUPID. Sorry, but someone has to state the obvious. And then you realise, using MBS you cant produce what you want in all 20, you just get all doing the same order. Thats exactly the same thing as telling 20 zealots to attack 1 tank or a-moving them inot the enemy lines, its better to micro them induvidually but the UI give you the option to do the job half assed wich is needed when the armies get bigger. Ordering 20 zealots to attack 1 tank is one decision, that we all know, and by the same note ordering 20 gateways to build 1 zealot each is also one decision. Although pro players will click "5z" every 2 seconds to get a continious stream of zealots rather than wait for the money to pile up.
So MBS should allow you to do the job "half assed" by maxing each queue first. E.g. you click "z" 10 times while selecting 10 Gateways, and Zealots queue up in only 2 Gateways - 5 each.
Anyways, in my last post I was just arguing his ridiculous "reasoning" where he tried to prove that ordering one's Zealots to attack Tanks separately while avoiding other units is multiple decisions, while in fact it's not - any average Protoss player knows how to do that. I was pointing out that being unable to tell your Zealots to do that with just one click is similar to being unable to queue units the way MBS does it.
I rest my case.
|
GeneralStan, you listed what you thought are the factors that compose macro (which by the way is an incomplete list), then stated, "Of the listed factors, MBS affects nothing in macro". If you were only talking about factors in macro that MBS does not affect, mention those specifically. But then again, this discussion isnt about what MBS doesnt affect, its what MBS does affect. So why even make such a statement? You need to focus on what macro aspects MBS WILL affect, and how that will change gameplay.
To Unentschieden 's statement "For observers Macro is completely irrelevant", I will just say LOL. You obviously havent followed the pro scene. Macro has wowed spectators many a time, and its an element that is very strong felt during pro games.
Complexity and simplicity lie at extreme ends, and the quest is to find a point where fun and effort find good balance. If you are going to introduce MBS to simplify gameplay, make it easier, and improve the UI, then why not take it a step further? Why do we need pylons, for example. Its a repetitive task performed every few supply units. It would be much simpler to just have 100 minerals deducted every time you cross the supply of 1 pylon, instead of having to select a probe, move it out, press b, then p, left click to place the pylon, then right click the probe back to mining. This pylon making business involves no decision making - my decision was to make zealots and dragoons, why is this silly little super repetitive action attached to my making units? It is totally extraneous, so lets cut it out. But the reason its there is because it stresses the player - and not the type of stress where you pull your hair out - but the type that creates an atmosphere of urgency, tension, and excitement. All aspects of macro and micro together make us value time management during the game - with over simplification of macro, not only will we lose the macro aspect, but also a lot of the time aspect.
|
To GeneralStan, who said:
"I'll give you: MBS does impact macro and full-map multitasking
You give me: Micro is nothing like macro, and MBS doesn't effect the substantive decision making of macro."
I'll tell you: MBS will impact a lot more than full map multitasking, if by full map you mean late game scenarios. It will even impact early and mid game play, and even team play games.
And on micro: Obviously micro is nothing like macro, who the hell argued they are the same thing? Thats like saying a plane is a frog. The comparison that HAS been made, is that they are both fundamental qualities of starcraft, and both important, so much so that a more micro based player can have interesting games vs a more macro based player.
On the "MBS doesn't effect the substantive decision making of macro", you are again completely wrong, and let me explain why. Lets consider a PvT game where the toss has just attacked the terran nat. The ensuing engagement is such that the protoss player is not certain whether he'll be victorious or not. At this point, an important decision is forced upon him: should he spend time to macro while he fights, and hence compromise the micro of his army somewhat, or should he give his full concentration to the attack, and let his macro fall behind a bit? In an MBS world, where "4d" will accomplish ALL his macro, he will never be faced with this decision. In a non MBS world, he has to decide, and its a decision that is forced upon players so very often. Everyday, in fact. This is what "multi-tasking" is about. Clicking "4d" makes it a non issue, since one can obviously spare 0.2 nanoseconds to do so. But when you know that macro will require you to hit 4d5d6d7d8d9d or w/e, the nature of the decision changes. You put MBS in, you take this out. A decision that starcraft players have made thousands and thousands of times over their careers. You take out the time factor, the decision making, the multi tasking, all because of MBS.
I also note that it seems like pro MBS people like to talk about repetitive actions and decision making and whats realistic or not and advancement in game development and potential reviews and how tall zealots are and blah blah, but I have yet to see any concrete argument that explain why and how the induction of MBS will make the game more challenging, increase the skill range, make it as strong on the pro scene as the original, and make it such an amazing experience that it'll last another ten years.
|
Clearly I didn't assemple a full list of factors to macro. Handspeed and repetitive clicking are a very large factor.
You see Gandalf, I was arguing not that MBS doesn't impact macro, no, only that it doesn't effect the decision making aspect. We're arguing about what MBS will effect, yes. That does mean also that we're arguing about what it doesn't affect.
I agreed with you entirely that Macro wows spectators. The view switches to a dozen freshly made tanks and the audience gasps. I love it. I do think though that macro burden is perhaps a little too heavy, since the best progamers make all sorts of careless mistakes (the average player should make them, the best pros should have silky smooth control over the whole game). But that's kinda random.
THere's a lot more to pylons than supply. Power grid is important, and most good players also use them as walls. Even supply depots, where there is no power grid to consider, are used as walls. They've been given a submersible feature to make depot placement even more important, rather than just a mindless task. I think maybe they should be made smaller though, both so depots aren't such a huge drain on base space and so that walling in with them takes more time/skill. But that's got absolutely nothing to do with MBS.
"Complexity and simplicity lie at extreme ends, and the quest is to find a point where fun and effort find good balance."
QFT! I really think that that's whole point of this dicussion, to find where fun and effort = good balance. The hectic pace of Starcraft has to stay, that's a fact. I really think that multiple base management and low-hp quick micro and powerful spells have more to do with the hectic pace of starcraft than the repition of unit production, although it is certainly a factor.
There's one thing I'm certain of: MBS MUST apply to rally points. The rally point button on production facilities is too hard to use. Every player just dumps their rally points at a location, rather than responding to the shifting battle (which really puts a player in shit creek when they're rally point is swarming with enemy forces).
|
On February 05 2008 04:38 Gandalf wrote:
and how tall zealots are
LOL. Zealots are exactly 7'-6". Every one of them. Their leg enhancements are adjusted depending on their height so they fit in a shuttle harness with no adjustment. Also, this explains why zealots don't jump out of a shuttle that's going down. They're strapped in silly!
Seriously though, I think we're arguing about minutae now.
I concede a point to you. MBS does indeed affect macro decision making. Though there is no decision to be made in the repetative clicking, it requires the player to make a decision whether to macro or whether to micro. Touche sir!
There were some arguments that seemed very close to equivocating micro and macro, but I understand that you didn't make such a claim (maybenexttime pretty much did though).
My current position:
MBS is allowed by double clicking or click and drag, but not allowed for hotkeys.
EDIT: Gandalf, you're a damn decent bloke.
|
maybenexttime I think we simply have different ideas of the term "desicion" in this context.
What kind of visually impressive macro are you refering to? I was specifically adressing the building unit aspect (wich is a small part of overall Macro).
The supply system does not serve to keep the player "busy". It serves as Army size restriction. The addtional 100 mins and the build time keep your army smaller in the beginning phase but don´t restrict "rebuilding". That promotes early skirmishes, attaking once with a bigger force it more expensive than attacking twice with a smaller force thanks to that (if it is better is a different issue).
|
On February 05 2008 04:58 Unentschieden wrote:
maybenexttime I think we simply have different ideas of the term "desicion" in this context.
What kind of visually impressive macro are you refering to? I was specifically adressing the building unit aspect (wich is a small part of overall Macro).
The supply system does not serve to keep the player "busy". It serves as Army size restriction. The addtional 100 mins and the build time keep your army smaller in the beginning phase but don´t restrict "rebuilding". That promotes early skirmishes, attaking once with a bigger force it more expensive than attacking twice with a smaller force thanks to that (if it is better is a different issue).
Any decent player constantly upgrades their supply limit, basically meaning it is a required action every 30 seconds. Warcraft has a decision whether or not to upgrade supply (due to upkeep) but I think we really really don't want that in Starcraft
|
I was just saying that the constant need for upgrading is a side effect, not the main idea behind the concept.
|
Well, you can say that constant need for producing units is a side effect of engagements and units dying, though.
And I did not equivocate micro and macro. The discussion about Zealots and all that crap was way off topic. I was simply saying that you in both micro and macro aspects of StarCraft there are times where carrying out one decision requires several+ actions, generally speaking (I'm talking about broad-term macro - decision making etc., not just units production).
Also, the way I worded my posts was uncalled for at times, I admit and I apologize. I was just pissed off at some random BNet forum dumbass saying unit (muta) stacking in SC2 and SC are the same thing, while it's the way it's done in WC3 now. He was telling me read Q&A, and when I quoted one answer basically proving I was right, he kept repeating this bullcrap anyway.
BTW, you can voice your opinion or get pissed off:
http://www.battle.net/forums/thread.aspx?fn=sc2-general&t=359786&p=1&#post359786
|
Unentschieden,
I am afraid by your predictions as to what making the game easier will do.
In my opinion:
-It's obvious it WOULD save at least one second to select 10 gates and create 10 zealots with 2 hotkeys as opposed to loads of clicking. 1 sec is a lot in pro SC and so I think the game would be thrown off balance for pros-
But what really scares me is that you think that if a bunch of random people are drawn into starcraft because it is 'fast and fun!', then we will see more competitive play and players. This is blatantly false. All you will ever do is draw in more noobish noobs. Good players that have been exposed to one RTS will generally have discovered their talent and will go to search for the hardest = natural conclusion STARCRAFT. There are so many noobish noobs in WC3 it's unfunny. Whereas 2v2 or 1v1 'noob' games on starcraft are really competitive!
The noobish noobs who have their brains fried by producing 5 units in one barracks stick with aoe3, and the good players/ pros who like that speed and specific look stick with it. But the rest of the good players go off to 1337 starcraft.
Basically you want to make Starcraft 2 a stepping stone. You want to make it like aoe3, where it's 'fast and fun and accessible!' ie the EXACT difference between aoe3 and aoc.
So it's gona be stepped on, and the people who play SC because of the sci-fi etc will go to starcraft 2, and the REAL GAMERS who have played 100+ games in their long and industrious video games histories will stick the proper skill games like starcraft 1.
I'd personally prefer that noobish noobs stayed away from both games, because SC is the fine wine of competitive RTS. Noobish noobs can learn how to not be noobs somewhere else, THEN come to SC when they have improved and want to find the mac daddy of RTS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
