EPTIt's pure idiocy to beleive that all the progamers click buildings slower than oov and that's the reason oov has scary macro. I doubt anyone that has any idea what he's talking about will argue with such idiocy and will try to prove obvious things.
[D] MBS Discussion II - Page 4
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
lololol
5198 Posts
It's pure idiocy to beleive that all the progamers click buildings slower than oov and that's the reason oov has scary macro. I doubt anyone that has any idea what he's talking about will argue with such idiocy and will try to prove obvious things. | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
On December 25 2007 21:12 lololol wrote: Blizzcon games were locked to normal game speed, not on fastest, so unless what I read was wrong and it wasn't that way, these games prove absolutely nothing, playing SC1 on normal and drawing conclusions about the game has about the same weight as this, i.e. absolutely none. The thing is that the SC gamers who've tested the SC2 Alpha didn't say "I had some free seconds in the game" they said "I had about zero to do after managing my units". That shouldn't be the case even on normal speed (5), because it is only 2 steps away from fastest speed (7). The percental difference between these two settings is ~28%. That means that if on speed 5 they had moments of complete inactivity they will surely have free seconds on speed 7. It's pure idiocy to beleive that all the progamers click buildings slower than oov and that's the reason oov has scary macro. I doubt anyone that has any idea what he's talking about will argue with such idiocy and will try to prove obvious things. First of all: don't call anybody here an idiot. The only thing you get from that is less respect. It is absolutely not idiotic to believe that oov produces units faster because of his hand/finger-speed. We can still see games where he overpowers his opponents with sheer masses. Just watch recent VOD's. This also says something about styles. In SC2 exists a macro-heavy style. It is there because there is no MBS and no automining. A player who focuses on managing bases will always produce units more effectively and in bigger numbers than a player who focuses on managing units. In SC the difference can be huge, it can create such an imbalance that the players completely lose their timings. That imbalance comes from individual playing styles, so it is a good imbalance because it makes the games more exciting to watch. With more focuse on unit-management in SC2 - as it will be the case if MBS and automining stay in the game - there will also be less individual playing styles, we can safely say that in that case the game would not be as exciting as it could be. | ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
On December 25 2007 09:55 ForAdun wrote: The last sentence says that "MBS maybe makes the game easier for the person who had 4 fingers". Why can't we just leave out the 'maybe'? I think this is alright because if that wasn't your opinion you would not have said it, right? I'll reduce that to "MBS easens the game for handicapped persons". I think everyone here agrees to me that a 4-fingered person is weaker than a 5-fingered person if both their fingers are equally skilled, so I consider the 4-fingered person to be weaker. Should be fine then if I translate that into "MBS easens the game for weaker players". I've obviously reduced your statement a bit, but your original message is still there, correct? And this is where I found you saying that MBS makes the game easier. Feel free to claim that my argumentation is that of a child but I already see you having a hard time to refute it. lol. The logical jump from generalizing a handicapped person to a weaker person is alittle ridiculous, but that's fine. It works. However in the debate of whether or not MBS should be included or not in th e final product, I don't think it holds much ground. We're trying to debate on this forum essential whether or not SBS is a central and required feature to maintain the feel, balance and elegance of what we know as competitive starcraft. The point of my argument was to state that yes it is very easy to point out that MBS does make aspects easier. The whole point is that making a few aspects easier does not necessarily make the competitive level any lesser as long as the game retains elements that still make it more challenging than can be perfected... I think you've been missing the point of my posts (I could be mistaken) by resorting to this whole easier = worse argument. Sure we want the game to maintain a certain level of difficulty even if easier doesn't make the game less competitive or challenging. Quake 3 still has a very strong competitive level. This is due to exploiting the resources of the maps, having superb twitch aim and ect. The game does not require anywhere near the same skill sets required by SBS and yet the game still maintains an e-sports status and people do well playing it. Not as well as starcraft simply because of the Korean culture and the like. I say this not as a fan of Quake 3 but of Starcraft. Anyone can play Quake 3 and have the same APM as Fatal1ty yet he'd rape them 20-0. Would you say that Chess is less competitive? no, not competitive. Easier to play competitively? Maybe... You obviously won't rape for some long time Chess only requires mastery of a few skillsets while Starcraft takes the majority of those skillsets and adds reaction time, multitasking, 150+APM requirements and any and everything else real time encompasses. The question is -- Does reducing that required APM during certain APM intensive seconds ruin the competitive level of the game? Obviously not. It might reduce the strain on the SBS required skillsets. So the way I see it is that if you're arguing against MBS then you are arguing that it is the SBS skillset that makes Starcraft so competitive. You're arguing that the removal of the strain on this skillset would not result in that "strain" being transfered to other skill sets and players would just play less intense partially idle games. Please think.  | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
What's funny is that you can't even compherend, that the total available time decreases, not just the idle time by percentage, if you need 50 seconds to do all the things required in 60 seconds of game time, when the game speed increases by 2/3 the total available time decreases to 36(60% of 60), you won't have 6 seconds(60% of 10) of idle time, you'll be 14 seconds behind. I hope that this isn't too complex math for you, but hope is only hope. It's also quite obvious that oov doesn't have double the APM of the average progamer, he's about average, so he obviously isn't faster and everyone that has any idea about the game can confirm that macro is not about clicking buildings faster then the opponent, it's about proper timing and time management. And I could care less about respect from someone who is always talking out of his ass and requires obvious things explained especially to him and if noone decides to waste his time explaining the obvious to some random nobody, he then declares himself right and the obvious wrong, because nobody bothered to prove it especially and only for him. And no, you won't get respect for acting like an ass. The multiple warnings sadly didn't make you understand that. I'm done stating the obvious, but you're free to make up some BS as always. | ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
| ||
|
Wraithlin
United Kingdom50 Posts
MBS will make the game easier in the same way multi unit queues make the game easier; they will reduce the number of actions and attention required to play the game, but spending that time will raise the level of your play. Beginners will queue lots of units because their macro isnt at a level where they can return every time units compete construction; in the same way they will use MBS. Everyone on this board is aware why you would not queue units in a barracks and the same arguements express why you would not build using MBS if your ability was high enough. Do pro-MBS people really belive that the player who lets 1000 minerals accrue so that he can MBS his 10 gateways to produce one type of unit has an advantage over the person who SBS's his gateways out of choice to produce a balanced army without letting a mass of resources accrue ? | ||
|
BlackSphinx
Canada317 Posts
On December 28 2007 03:10 Wraithlin wrote: Do pro-MBS people really belive that the player who lets 1000 minerals accrue so that he can MBS his 10 gateways to produce one type of unit has an advantage over the person who SBS's his gateways out of choice to produce a balanced army without letting a mass of resources accrue ? I think you meant "Anti-MBS" as the 2nd word of your 1st sentence, but I agree. The requirements of building a balanced army will offset MBS advantages. It just won't be a factor as much as smartcasting, heavy unit selection and such. | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
You people are acting that MBS can't be used skillfully. Do you really think a progamer will be using MBS the most stupid way possible? And actually, it will be better to produce 30 carriers with two clicks while you aren't even looking so you have a lot of left over time to micro/expand/whatever then spending all that time to produce 6 zealots & 8 Stalkers, 3 High Templar manually. | ||
|
Wraithlin
United Kingdom50 Posts
MBS does just one thing and one thing only, it lets you select multiple buildings at once and issue them all the same command. Therefore to use MBS to build units you require enough resources to build the unit at every production buildings and you MUST build the same unit from every building. So in your example to build 30 carriers in 2 clicks would require you to wait until you had the 6000 minerals and 6000 gass before you built anything. Sound like such a good idea now does it ? Of course it does not. The arguments about MBs make alot of assumptions, alot, most of which are almost certainly wrong. But the most important assumption, which is completely unfounded is that MBS will be equally as powerful as SBS; this is the same as assuming that being able to queue 10 units in one go is the same as buiding 10 units individually by returning to the gateway as each is produced. Simply put, as long as there is an advantage to SBS over MBS, in the same way there is an advantage to building units individually rather than queueing 10 at one building and forgetting about it, then ALL the anti-MBS arguements are mute and defunct; because the very best players will still use SBS to gain whatever advantage it gives them. | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
This is what I said before. And you don't need a certain amount of minerals to use MBS. If you have less it just doesn't build units in all buildings you selected. And even MBS used in the most stupid way is better than SBS under certain circumstances, as I describes as well. Why don't you look at how much minerals you generate if you have to micro for 15 seconds while mining from 4/5 bases? With MBS you can build all-round units with all your buildings. Yes, not the best unit mix. But you can build them while microing and it only requites a '5s' to build 14 stalkers. Not to mention this will prevent you from queuing up several units in one gateway while another one is available. Just spam 5s every once in a while while microing and you will be producing Stalkers with perfect macro. Your SBS opponent will have to go back to his base and select and order each individual production building. He can get the optimum unit mixture. But his units will arrive 15 second late. I rather have a poor mix of units than no units at all. But you can just as easily spam '5s' first, and then '6z7i' later. This does give you a decent unit mix if you have the correct number of gateways under each key. All this while looking at your units fighting. As you say; you won't have the resources to fill all your gateways at once. | ||
|
Wraithlin
United Kingdom50 Posts
On December 28 2007 09:52 BlackStar wrote: If MBS is in the game you will always be using MBS. Not if there is advantage to using SBS over MBS. And even MBS used in the most stupid way is better than SBS under certain circumstances, as I describes as well. Name them Why don't you look at how much minerals you generate if you have to micro for 15 seconds while mining from 4/5 bases? How many games are you playing where you mine from 5 bases simultaineously ? With MBS you can build all-round units with all your buildings. Yes, not the best unit mix. But you can build them while microing and it only requites a '5s' to build 14 stalkers. ... Your SBS opponent will have to go back to his base and select and order each individual production building. He can get the optimum unit mixture. But his units will arrive 15 second late. Wait, it takes you 15seconds to queue units from 14 gateways... I do have one question which I have not seen anyone answer but alot of people seem to be assuming: Is there any evidence that MBS is smart and will queue units in an unused gateway over a gateway already in use ? | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
On December 28 2007 10:14 Wraithlin wrote: Not if there is advantage to using SBS over MBS. Do you really think they will add MBS but then make units build with MBS cost more resources? Name them It's really simple. MBS let's you build units with two actions from as many production buildings as you have. The later in the game, the more powerful MBS since more units are build with the same effort. Let's say the unit cap is 1000 and the maps are 10 times the size. Now they won't. But now maybe it's clear even for you to see MBS used stupidly can be better than SBS used in the most intelligent way possible. How many games are you playing where you mine from 5 bases simultaineously? I play three at once? No really, is this a joke? Wait, it takes you 15seconds to queue units from 14 gateways... No. You didn't read properly. You can't build from 14 gateways while microing a fight with SBS. You can with MBS. He will build during the fight. You will build after the fight. Also, this is in game time. So it's off because you play at fastest. Is there any evidence that MBS is smart and will queue units in an unused gateway over a gateway already in use ? Ask people that played at Blizzcon. Seems odd to me that Blizzard would implement MBS because it's good and then nerf it by making it stupid because a 'good' MBS is bad. | ||
|
1esu
United States303 Posts
I want to comment on the rest of the debate, but simply don't have the time right now. | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
Bottom line is that overall SC2 is easier on every front when compared to SC. If you think there are other things that will occupy their time i highly suggest you prove what those are. And saying 'strategy' can now be focused on is illogical because progamers and other SCers can already do that. If you want a competitive game then you shouldn't want MBS automining and smartcasting. It's that simple. | ||
|
Markus
Canada11 Posts
On December 28 2007 10:53 MyLostTemple wrote: Bottom line is that overall SC2 is easier on every front when compared to SC. If you think there are other things that will occupy their time i highly suggest you prove what those are. And saying 'strategy' can now be focused on is illogical because progamers and other SCers can already do that. If you want a competitive game then you shouldn't want MBS automining and smartcasting. It's that simple. Age of Empires 2 had a MBS. And trust me 80% of your time was attacking on multiple fronts, selecting 6-8 groups of skirms/other units and clicking on an enemy skirm/other unit to 1 hit it/kill it as fast as possible. The better you were the more groups you could micro and the more kills you'd get each volley. Whoever could micro their units better, kept units away from their counter better, would win. The other 20% of the time was macro'ing your eco/keeping steady military production, but you still needed to macro your ass off. Age2 without a MBS would have been much worse in my opinion as you would have to spend much much more time macro'ing and less time on your military, basically attack-moving and not micro'ing as much in most battles, and definately not fighting on multiple fronts you'd be forced into 1 big army vs 1 big army battles. I'm sick of reading comments by people who probably have not played any other RTS game competitively, make comments on a game they have never played yet. They talk like they know RTS's inside and out, when they've probably never played anything else, and generally think they are superior to everyone else because theres a competitive scene in a country they probably do not live in and a scene they probably do not participate in other than as a spectator. Btw, unlimited unit selection would have done _nothing_ to the competitive scene of Age. In age your units die so fast, and you have units all over the map so much, being able to group them all into 1 group would have been meaningless. If they make SC2 like WC3 though thats a different story. But you cannot tell how it will affect gameplay until you see it. So stop commenting on MBS, unlimited unit selection, and anything else until the game comes out. | ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
On December 28 2007 10:53 MyLostTemple wrote: i'm sick of reading comments by people who claim that MBS wont really dumb down the skill level of the game. A large portion of Starcraft is macro. with mbs automining and other features that let the computer play for you we lose this portion of SC--a part that helped keep SC comeptitive. Now dumbly asserting that we can focus on other things is stupid. Progamers have already proven they can play near perfect games, lowering the bar doesn't help with that. What else are they going to focus on? Micro?... micro is already MUCH easier with smartcasting and unlimited selection. Bottom line is that overall SC2 is easier on every front when compared to SC. If you think there are other things that will occupy their time i highly suggest you prove what those are. And saying 'strategy' can now be focused on is illogical because progamers and other SCers can already do that. If you want a competitive game then you shouldn't want MBS automining and smartcasting. It's that simple. Well... First off this isn't about automining or any of the other features, and using them to support your MBS argument is irrelevant, and please stay on topic if your going to be derogatory in your argumentation. Not only is stating that "dumbly asserting that we can focus on other things is stupid" redundant it's also largely unfounded. You can't prove that, How do you know that the new nomad won't require 124 more clicks than the science vessal in an average minute? You can't. I don't think it will, nor do i believe anything thinks such. You simply can't prove it. So please don't spam anymore. It's also not very polite to redundantly call peoples speculations on a debatable topic stupid or dumb especially when you don't state any facts to support your claim. You simply state this is how it is and if you disagree you don't know anything. You yourself don't know anything about Competitive starcraft 2. It doesn't even exist yet (however I got money saying you'll reply to this saying you know something about a different game called Starcraft 1. A game of which you are extremely familiar with). Does that mean that to create a corrolation is folly? Certainly not. But does it provide factual evidence? Certainly not.. as for Progamers have already proven they can play near perfect games, lowering the bar doesn't help with that I've never seen a Starcraft 2 tourny? I didn't know there were pros already. But since we're attempting to create a bullshit corrolation to Starcraft. I'll merit this. Can you tell me how high the bar is? Not the bar of any particular player, but the closest to perfection that can be achieved in a 30 minute game perhaps? Not definitively. So how can you gauge the bar to be lower? Because you have a preconception of where the bar is and the effects of something you have no experience with in a game you haven't played. Make sense? Also, I feel that there is a hole in your logic. Let me explain. I'll use a number scale to help conceptualize this abstraction. Lets say the perfect game of Starcraft as played by a God-Machine of the utmost perfection is rated as a 100. Lets say (accuracy for this number isn't too relevant and is not to be debated as it'd be vain) the best starcraft human in the world plays about an 85 on this scale. With MBS the machine still maintains a 100 as perfection cannot be perfected. By your logic the human would then have a rating of 100(perfect is perfect after all). But i don't think you meant true perfection, So lets say with MBS the pro gamer jump to 95. I could articulate it differently to where the numbers go down since the 100 represents the bar. I'd rather keep the round numbers and have the average of skill raise. There is not really a difference in my view, the point values simply change. Now from the perspective of those that feel that MBS will not greatly lower the bar because of numerous reason (SBS isn't really that hard, more time to do even more difficult things on multiple fronts, micro ect ect ect) The example might look something like this Pre MBS: Machine 100 Top Pro 85 Now with the implementation of MBS Machine 100 Top Pro 87 (Edit: If you're arguing that a very very miniscule difference in the overall playstyle of the game makes it less competitive. I would like to see a nice concise formulation of the argument that is valid.)(I say playstyle because it's not like MBS generates an advantage for either player) Why? Because if you're a top pro SBS does not take up very much of your time, nor is it very difficult. Also if your a top pro you should be talented enough to use the few seconds of very little of your time that was absorbed by SBS to find a way to generate any other sort of advantage over your opponent. I would be surprised if anyone would argue that any human ever in the future or past could beat this computer, how can perfection be beaten? Some of your argumentation seems like you believe that the current starcraft pros are already like the Theoretical machine i'm talking about. If that's true then your saying that no time in the future could someone play better than they are playing now, you're also saying that we should see no more variation in the game. I've never heard of true perfection varying. (I'm interested in being enlightened on that part though) On those grounds too these "perfect humans" should have no problem adapting to A non MBS environment. You're not arguing that they're only so "near perfect" right now because of SBS are you? I would think it would be any and all of the other countless facets of the game. Let's try not to become bias in our oversimplifications please. Essentially: Are Anti-MBS players arguing that a machine that played starcraft to perfection would have no change in his play because of the few seconds per game made available? That doesn't sound very perfect to me. Bottom line is that overall SC2 is easier on every front when compared to SC. First. Prove it. Second. PM me and I'll make a generous offer for a copy of your copy of Starcraft 2 since you seem to have a copy. How else would you have such information? OH! Speculation. My bad. as for If you think there are other things that will occupy their time i highly suggest you prove what those are. Well... I'll talk out of my ass a little just to humor you. New unit abilities (Ever think that perhaps abilities could be time intensive? Nomad comes to mind. Just a bullshit idea i'm spewing) New Terrain mechanics allow for new tactics and strategies which could or not could be more time intensive (as this requires you to split up your army it could allow for multiple fronts to occur a lot more frequenty which for sufficient micro would indeed require more time) Now to call on me to prove these things is like me calling on you to explain the more techincal details of the effects and needs of balancing psi storm with smartcasting in conjunction with the balance of the rest of the protoss force. It can't be done with our information so lets try not to lie. I'm simply making an attempt at humoring you and this entire section of my reply isn't part of the point. And saying 'strategy' can now be focused on is illogical because progamers and other SCers can already do that. You heard it here first people! There is no more room for strategic improvement within Starcraft. Or wait... What? And now just because this is what I think should be written: If you want a competitive game then you shouldn't want MBS automining and smartcasting. It's that simple. If you want a competitive game that's a true sequel to starcraft, yet not identical. In your ignorance you should prolly maintain an Anti-Automining and Anti-Smartcasting stance. It's not so simple. | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
| ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
On December 28 2007 09:52 BlackStar wrote: With MBS you can build all-round units with all your buildings. Yes, not the best unit mix. But you can build them while microing and it only requites a '5s' to build 14 stalkers. Not to mention this will prevent you from queuing up several units in one gateway while another one is available. Just spam 5s every once in a while while microing and you will be producing Stalkers with perfect macro. Your SBS opponent will have to go back to his base and select and order each individual production building. He can get the optimum unit mixture. But his units will arrive 15 second late. And the better player instead of hotkeying all 14 to 1 building hotkeys them across 3-4 and gets a better unit distribution than you and beats you. And even if he doesn't but still uses MBS, what advantage do you gain that your economy didn't provide? | ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
On December 28 2007 20:38 BlackStar wrote: Motiva, please stop deliberately misinterpreting him and making straw man arguments. It's annoying. Hmmm I see no misinterpretion? The closest to that would be if you cite a few uses of the word perfect which perhaps should have been "near perfect" or should I say: Blackstar please stop accusing me of things i'm not intending to do without citing your reasoning. Or perhaps I should have just replied the same reply to his post as his post was this thread. "I'm sick of people saying MBS is bad and if you disagree you're wrong. This is ridiculous and anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken and should use their brain." EDIT: Also, could you cite which arguments were Straw Man arguments? I did no misrepresent him whatsoever. I may have made a mistake or two, but his entire post is at the top of my post just incase someone views my quotes to be out of context and unfair. The closest thing I've used to a Straw Man argument against Tasteless would be in the previous thread on whether or not SBS is easy for pros or not. That wasn't a fallacy though so there was no Straw Man Argument. I beg you to explain yourself for it is quite late my time, and I could be very mistaken. If that is the case I shall apologize and continue the debate on other grounds. I do however have a feeling that your really just referring to my sarcastic tone in the thread above. That is simply because of my lack of patience with the redundancy of the post I am replying to. The majority of what you might be interpretting as a Straw Man argument is really irrelevant to the topic and is an attempt by me to indirectly and perhaps haughtily tell him that I found the quality of his post to be lacking due to his word choice, conceptual constructs and logic. The majority of it doesn't prove my points. Using someone's own words to prove the opposite of their point does not make it a straw man argument unless I am misrepresenting his words. I don't think I even came close to misrepresenting him however, perhaps I came close to being rude though. I was simply attempting to take his points and show him that they don't prove anything productive to his perspective. In essence perhaps I should have really written: 1)"You're not arguing that they're only so "near perfect" right now because of SBS are you? Auto-Mine and Smartcasting are off-topic." 2) Can really say they're near perfect? Saying they're near perfect is saying that Starcraft is near the end of evolution in Metagame, Playstyle, Multitasking, APM, and every single other facet of the game are "near perfect". | ||
|
Showtime!
Canada2938 Posts
I'm surrounded by a crowd of blundering idiots. You people go around in more circles than NASCAR. It is kind of sad and the amount of speculation and theorycrafting is ridiculous for things you know nothing about: "'PRO' DEBATERS!" ROFL. We aren't laughing with you; we're laughing at you. Keep it going though I find you highly entertaining. BONG! | ||
| ||
