|
On March 16 2008 01:06 0xDEADBEEF wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2008 23:48 Fen wrote:
Warcraft 3's micro is on a different level to starcraft's micro however. Units in warcraft 3 were made to have 800 health and survive 50 hits with an axe to increase micro play. Because your units dont die, there are many more micro actions that can be performed in a battle (longer battles equal more time to micro). Starcraft battles are fast and generally over quickly. Less time in the battles means that there is less that you can micro.
This is something that I think is being overlooked a bit. In battle, Warcraft 3 players and Starcraft players most likely have the same APM. In both games, the limit is hit where you have lots to do, and you cannot move fast enough to do it all. However you spend a lot more of your game fighting in warcraft than you do starcraft. Unless something is added to make players constantly fight, starcraft 2 looks like it will have a lot of dead space where the players arent challenged to be moving at their limits. All true, but I fail to see why the last argument is a bad thing. If there's nothing happening currently, why introduce something to make something happen? I know you are under constant pressure in SC1, whether your opponent is doing something or not, but why should this be?
Because this is a competative medium. There should always be something that a better player can be doing that a lesser player is not. While of course this wont be perfect, it is something that should be strived for. If you get into a battle, one person just attack moves his entire army, one person focus fires, and one person focus fires and moves the hurt units back, you expect that the person who is doing more should be adequetely rewarded for it.
Maybe the person who only attack-moves is limited by his APM and cannot move his mouse fast enough, maybe he doesnt see the tactical advantage. Regardless of why, everyone would argue that the person who does the better micro should be rewarded. This needs to be continued throughout the entire game. Those that do more smart actions get rewarded. Which is why anyone who argues that the game shouldnt reward people with high APM's is an idiot.
Now there will be micro in Starcraft 2, but it will not be a long drawn out process like in warcraft 3. There will be a much smaller window for a better player to show that he is better if micro is the only area where he can make more smart moves than his opponent.
Now if there are periods of time where there is no fighting, we have MBS, automine working for us. You can see how there is very little that a better player can do to gain the advantage in this situation. And this is something that does not work towards making a good esport.
EDIT: @ Famehunter. That post wasnt made to point out why MBS or noMBS should be included. It was written to rebut every argument from either side that states that "spectators only care about watching a battle". What I want to make clear is that the game must be hard for it to become a spectator spot. There must be a clear reason why the best are the best, not just subtle differences in game styles.
|
@Streetfighter post:
Sounds reasonable, but still doesn't mean that I was wrong. In SC1, you clearly see amazing micro early in the game and less and less so as the game goes on. Big battles ensue, the only micro being displayed is pretty much A-click, retreat and a few spells here and there. We've reached the point where the players are so stressed with managing their economy and bases and units that they have to prioritize, they HAVE to ignore lots of micro moves simply because they either can't do it at that time (not enough APM) or because they think that macroing at that point is more important.
And the spectators, as I said, don't see that. They don't see these decisions. All they see is that there is less and less micro as time goes on. Sure, it's still quite epic with the big armies and all, and if the others all cheer they will do so too, but there is still a certain decrease in the quality of the battles. Now if players had more time for that, the battles would be spectacular again.
Imagine that macro was twice as hard and time-consuming as it is in SC1. The battles and micro would be quite pathetic and boring as a result, because you'd need like 400 APM purely for macro, leaving you with almost nothing for micro. The commentators can make it far more exciting than it is, but you still have to ask yourself: why is this already so hard that only pros can do it? Shouldn't there be more? Shouldn't it be even better? Shouldn't it be more spectacular?
|
On March 15 2008 23:16 Famehunter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2008 22:26 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
@Famehunter: uh no, he was really slow there, but that's understandable because it's a completely new game and it was for fun anyway. But seriously, he wasn't fast at all. That was like 100-120 APM at most. He has 300-400 in SC1. Watch an SC1 FPVOD of him or, even better, Jaedong with 400-600 APM. that was not my point. Good players will remain good macroers and its not mbs that will take this away from them. imo you could really see from that fpvod that the experience and practice savior has with SC is not something that anyone can achieve with merely a couple hours of play. And just wait til he starts playing the game for real  The fact that TL team raped everyone at the blizz offices also serves as good proof that people who already have experience with BW will not be complete strangers in the SC2 gameplay domain.
First of all, it wasn't your point. T_____T Second of all, what does hand speed have to do with macro, or why would hand speed giving you an advantage equal to macro being important? ;;
|
Or a more extreme example: imagine that moving units was so hard that only pros can do it well. For example, because a single rightclick wasn't enough and you'd need to press like 10 different keys within 1 second or else the units won't move at all.
According to your post, spectators would cheer because it's hard and they can't do it, but you still have to ask yourself: is this really great?
|
On March 16 2008 01:26 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
@Streetfighter post:
Sounds reasonable, but still doesn't mean that I was wrong. In SC1, you clearly see amazing micro early in the game and less and less so as the game goes on. Big battles ensue, the only micro being displayed is pretty much A-click, retreat and a few spells here and there. We've reached the point where the players are so stressed with managing their economy and bases and units that they have to prioritize, they HAVE to ignore lots of micro moves simply because they either can't do it at that time (not enough APM) or because they think that macroing at that point is more important.
And the spectators, as I said, don't see that. They don't see these decisions. All they see is that there is less and less micro as time goes on. Sure, it's still quite epic with the big armies and all, and if the others all cheer they will do so too, but there is still a certain decrease in the quality of the battles. Now if players had more time for that, the battles would be spectacular again.
Imagine that macro was twice as hard and time-consuming as it is in SC1. The battles and micro would be quite pathetic and boring as a result, because you'd need like 400 APM purely for macro, leaving you with almost nothing for micro. The commentators can add a lot of excitement but you still have to ask yourself: why is this already so hard that only pros can do it? Shouldn't there be more? Shouldn't it be even better? Shouldn't it be more spectacular?
Prioritsation is an important part of the game and should DEFINATELY be a part of starcraft 2. Players should never be able to do everything they want to do just like an athlete cannot run as fast as he would like or jump as high as he would like.
The problem youve outlined here with macro being favoured over micro isnt due to macro being too hard. Its actually due to the fact that the game balance and map balance favours macro over micro. When faced with a choice of micro or macro, it should be an even split, however macro actions seem to be the better option a lot of the time.
Maps have a very big impact on this. If you look at the general trend in progaming, maps have moved from being very low in resources (6-7 mineral patches per base) to being higher in resources (12-14 patches). Builds such as Fast expo are much more rewarding due to naturals being easier to defend and cashflow being higher. With more cash, you end up building more units, more units mean they are more expendable and you have to spend more time at your barracks and factories.
Game balance also has an impact. There is no point in microing some units in battle because attack-move works fine. For example, microing your lings around in late game zvp isnt going to help much a lot of the time and you might as well just let them attack.
That being said, ive never seen a pro just attack-move carriers into an enemy. As the game gets later, the weak cannon fodder units do get thrown into the battle with a-move, but the big expensive units still get babysat.
I dont believe the micro does diminish all that much as the game goes on. However I do see that macro is a more desired action from mid game onwards, but that is due to the large economies people have at this point in the game.
The solution to this problem is not to reduce the difficulty of macro, only to fix the causes of why macro is a better option than micro.
|
On March 16 2008 01:43 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2008 23:16 Famehunter wrote:On March 15 2008 22:26 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
@Famehunter: uh no, he was really slow there, but that's understandable because it's a completely new game and it was for fun anyway. But seriously, he wasn't fast at all. That was like 100-120 APM at most. He has 300-400 in SC1. Watch an SC1 FPVOD of him or, even better, Jaedong with 400-600 APM. that was not my point. Good players will remain good macroers and its not mbs that will take this away from them. imo you could really see from that fpvod that the experience and practice savior has with SC is not something that anyone can achieve with merely a couple hours of play. And just wait til he starts playing the game for real The fact that TL team raped everyone at the blizz offices also serves as good proof that people who already have experience with BW will not be complete strangers in the SC2 gameplay domain. First of all, it wasn't your point. T_____T Second of all, what does hand speed have to do with macro, or why would hand speed giving you an advantage equal to macro being important? ;;
its rather obvious no ? Do I really have to explain it ?
|
On March 16 2008 01:44 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
Or a more extreme example: imagine that moving units was so hard that only pros can do it well. For example, because a single rightclick wasn't enough and you'd need to press like 10 different keys within 1 second or else the units won't move at all.
According to your post, spectators would cheer because it's hard and they can't do it, but you still have to ask yourself: is this really great?
This is a pretty extreme example now isnt it.
Spectators might not cheer, because I can imagine this game to be very boring due to a serious lack of variety with the lack of options to a player. However those that did play the game would be wow'ed by the fact that those players did get their units to move perfectly. Ever watched someone do Through Fire and Flames on expert. Its just dots flying down the screen, but if youve played guitar hero, its pretty amazing.
Cheering requires climatic moments. I can imagine your example wouldnt have too many. However imagine if your example was true and you saw someone play a game of starcraft as well as you currently play starcraft. It would be pretty fricken amazing, and when you saw a unit actually run away with red health, then youd probs be cheering.
|
On March 16 2008 01:44 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
Or a more extreme example: imagine that moving units was so hard that only pros can do it well.
This pretty much shows your failure in debating this.
|
On March 16 2008 01:52 Famehunter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2008 01:43 maybenexttime wrote:On March 15 2008 23:16 Famehunter wrote:On March 15 2008 22:26 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
@Famehunter: uh no, he was really slow there, but that's understandable because it's a completely new game and it was for fun anyway. But seriously, he wasn't fast at all. That was like 100-120 APM at most. He has 300-400 in SC1. Watch an SC1 FPVOD of him or, even better, Jaedong with 400-600 APM. that was not my point. Good players will remain good macroers and its not mbs that will take this away from them. imo you could really see from that fpvod that the experience and practice savior has with SC is not something that anyone can achieve with merely a couple hours of play. And just wait til he starts playing the game for real The fact that TL team raped everyone at the blizz offices also serves as good proof that people who already have experience with BW will not be complete strangers in the SC2 gameplay domain. First of all, it wasn't your point. T_____T Second of all, what does hand speed have to do with macro, or why would hand speed giving you an advantage equal to macro being important? ;; its rather obvious no ? Do I really have to explain it ?
You better do. I can't see how his being fast in that game (which he was not...) has anything to do with being good at macro. Hand speed gives you an advantage in WC3, following your "logic," macro is important in WC3... That's just idiotic, sorry.
|
On March 16 2008 01:49 Fen wrote:
The problem youve outlined here with macro being favoured over micro isnt due to macro being too hard. Its actually due to the fact that the game balance and map balance favours macro over micro. When faced with a choice of micro or macro, it should be an even split, however macro actions seem to be the better option a lot of the time.
Which is exactly what I think MBS will allow for: a better balance between micro and macro. Macro should still be there of course, but it has to be less time-consuming than in SC1, otherwise there will probably always be a dominance of macro over micro.
Maps have a very big impact on this. If you look at the general trend in progaming, maps have moved from being very low in resources (6-7 mineral patches per base) to being higher in resources (12-14 patches). Builds such as Fast expo are much more rewarding due to naturals being easier to defend and cashflow being higher. With more cash, you end up building more units, more units mean they are more expendable and you have to spend more time at your barracks and factories.
Game balance also has an impact. There is no point in microing some units in battle because attack-move works fine. For example, microing your lings around in late game zvp isnt going to help much a lot of the time and you might as well just let them attack.
That being said, ive never seen a pro just attack-move carriers into an enemy. As the game gets later, the weak cannon fodder units do get thrown into the battle with a-move, but the big expensive units still get babysat.
All true. I hope maps will be better in SC2
Although the carriers are really somewhat special: they are extremely expensive, so when you build carriers in PvT you won't have that many other units (you would have a TON of zeal/goon/HT if you didn't go carrier). So there's of course more time for you to micro the carriers.
The solution to this problem is not to reduce the difficulty of macro, only to fix the causes of why macro is a better option than micro.
That's a good point, and I have been thinking about this already, but I don't really know what a different solution would be like.
One of the possibilities I came up with was simply increasing unit production time. When you can't produce 10 goons within 30 seconds, but it takes like 45 seconds or even 1 minute until they're done, the units will become much more valuable and you have to micro ("babysit") them far more than you have to in SC1, otherwise you won't have an army for a "long" time.
This would maybe solve the micro/macro imbalance without the need of adding MBS.
But still, I think that MBS is also a perfectly nice solution for this problem.
|
On March 16 2008 02:00 BlackStar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2008 01:44 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
Or a more extreme example: imagine that moving units was so hard that only pros can do it well. This pretty much shows your failure in debating this.
Hehe, I have to disappoint you there. Although it is an extreme example, the core of this discussion is pretty much about the same thing: pro-MBS doesn't like the fact that relatively mundane macro tasks are as time-consuming as they are currently. If it's a simple task, it should also be easy to execute. Period.
|
It's easy to execute. It's just not easy to play perfectly.
Back in 1999 this wasn't an issue.
|
On March 16 2008 02:09 0xDEADBEEF wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2008 01:49 Fen wrote:
The problem youve outlined here with macro being favoured over micro isnt due to macro being too hard. Its actually due to the fact that the game balance and map balance favours macro over micro. When faced with a choice of micro or macro, it should be an even split, however macro actions seem to be the better option a lot of the time. Which is exactly what I think MBS will allow for: a better balance between micro and macro. Macro should still be there of course, but it has to be less time-consuming than in SC1, otherwise there will probably always be a dominance of macro over micro.
Not at all. If it is more advantagous to macro over micro, then players will macro over micro. The only thing MBS will do is remove the situation where your forced to make a choice between one or the other. You will be able to do both.
Show nested quote +The solution to this problem is not to reduce the difficulty of macro, only to fix the causes of why macro is a better option than micro. That's a good point, and I have been thinking about this already, but I don't really know what a different solution would be like. One of the possibilities I came up with was simply increasing unit production time. When you can't produce 10 goons within 30 seconds, but it takes like 45 seconds or even 1 minute until they're done, the units will become much more valuable and you have to micro ("babysit") them far more than you have to in SC1, otherwise you won't have an army for a "long" time. This would maybe solve the micro/macro imbalance without the need of adding MBS. But still, I think that MBS is also a perfectly nice solution for this problem.
Yes, longer times to build units/unit producing structures, more expensive units/unit producing structures. They are the types of things that will tip the balance in the favour of micro more. MBS will not.
|
Yeah, that would be an acceptable compromise for me.
|
Of course it won´t. But MBS is not indented as remedy for Micro/Macro balance. It is supposed to
"At the same time, we want to give what is now a fairly standard RTS interface to a lot of players. There's a lot of low-skill and medium-skill level players who will get a lot of value out of this."
(Bowder, from the Design Interview)
MBS would be a FACTOR in the process though.
|
On March 16 2008 02:37 Unentschieden wrote:
Of course it won´t. But MBS is not indented as remedy for Micro/Macro balance. It is supposed to
"At the same time, we want to give what is now a fairly standard RTS interface to a lot of players. There's a lot of low-skill and medium-skill level players who will get a lot of value out of this."
(Bowder, from the Design Interview)
MBS would be a FACTOR in the process though.
Yes I understand this and I do know that MBS will be part of starcraft 2.
Now we move to the next part of the argument. If MBS is added for the purpose of helping the low-skill players, then we can implement the 1 unit producing building per hotkey limitation. Using hotkeys to build units from the battlefield is something that low-skill players generally do not do and will therefore not affect their game. However to the better players, the Starcraft style of having to go back to base to macro will be preserved.
This is a win-win situation. Lesser-skilled players can build large armies with a few clicks, while as the skill level increases, this ability becomes less useful as hotkeying production buildings is required.
|
Yes, SC2 may actually become more macro oriented. MBS doesn't change the power of good macro compared to the power of good micro.
If you want to make SC more micro oriented then you need to make the game so that micro>macro.
For example, by stretching out the early game.
|
So far the progamer's remarks about the game have been somewhat positive(?) They didn't seem to mention that much about MBS though, which is wierd... maybe they were just trying to be nice?
The response to unlimited selection seems pretty positive too, which is surprising but good.
Anyways, it should be interesting to see what their genuine reaction to the game is once beta testing commences.
I don't know though, are there transcripts somewhere that unveils more of their reactions to SC2 in more detail?
|
They didn't mention it because they're really used to SC 1 UI so they didn't even use it, they don't really follow SC 2 developement (including MBS) most probably.
|
Plus they have media training.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
