|
Sweden33719 Posts
On February 24 2008 07:25 Unentschieden wrote:
I just love the "everyone anti-mbs is a retarded noob" angle. It´s a killall argument, we can stop the discussion now-anyone who is for the change is an idiot and doesn´t count.
Where is the line if I may ask? At what point does a noob subhuman turn into the Pro-Masterrace? When he changes his mind about the UI? When he reaches >80APM regulary?
It's the same as the "everyone who doesn't want mbs just fears their hard work is going to be taken away from them" argument, both sides make them, who cares ; [
|
On February 24 2008 10:20 Klouvious wrote:
How much MBS is too much MBS?
Should buildings be selected only individually ?
How about Protoss Phase Cannons ? Should you be allowed to select them in groups for easier undeployement movement and redeployment ? Should you be allowed to select them in groups for easier focus fire ?
How about other defensive structures such as Terran Bunkers ? Should you be allowed to select them in groups for easier focus fire ?
How about non defensive non production buildings ? Such as Terran Supply Depots ? Should you be allowed to select them in groups to easily submerge them ?
If you can't select more than one production building at a time won't Terrans benefit from that ? Their production buildings with the Reactor add on can produce 2 units simultaneously.
If you can't select more than one production building at a time won't Zerg benefit from that ? Their production buildings can produce up to 3 units simultaneously. Persuming it stays the same as SC 1.
If you can't select more than one production building at a time won't Protoss suffer from that ? Their Warp In mechanics will require either having all their Warpgates assigned to separate hotkeys or rapid travelling many times in a row between the Warpgates's location on the map and the desired Warp in location depending on the amount of Warpgates you have. Since they do not have production queues won't single building selection further diminish their pottential efficiency?
How about building placement? Do you have to place or your production buildings in close proximity to each other for faster accessibility or do you spread them all over the map ?
Here's an example of *theorycraft* production with MBS:
Lets say we are in a situation where player A player B player C and player D are playing Terran and all have 12 barracks and an O.K. economy.
Player A is the that anti-MBS example guy, who has put all 12 barracks in group 4 and presses 4m every time he has 600 or more minerals to produce a group of 12 marines.
Player B is the guy who has 9 barracks in group 4 and 3 barracks with tech lab in group 5 and presses 4m5e/or whatever the button for medic will be in SC2 every time he has 600 minerals and 100 gas.
Player C wants more units in the mix. So he has 6 barracks in group 4, 4 barracks with tech lab in group 5 and 2 more barracks with tech lab in group 6 so he presses 4m6e5r/or whatever the button is for marauder in SC2 every time he has 600-700 minerals and some gas.
Player D is the one devoting the most time to macro properly. He has 6 barracks with reactor assigned to 4 and 6 barracks with tech lab assigned to 5. Every time he has 50-70 minerals he presses 4m or 5e or 5r.
Lets say it takes them 60 seconds to get 1200 minerals and they currently have 0 and arent producing anything, also it takes about 20 seconds for a unit to be produced. So after 70 seconds:
Player A has 12 marines ready and he is waiting for another 10 seconds for the next batch to finish.
4m4m for player A in 70 seconds.
Player B has 9 marines ready 3 medics ready and is as well waiting another 10 seconds for another 9-3.
4m5e4m5e for player B in 70 seconds.
Player C has 6 marines 4 marauders and 2 medics. And is waiting for another 10 seconds for another 6-4-2.
4m5r6e4m5r6e for player C in 70 seconds.
Player D has 20 units of his choice in whatever analogy he wishes. And is currently producing another 8 units.Lets say he wishes a 3marines-2marauders-1medic analogy. So he now has 10 marines 7 marauders and 3 medics.
In that case he has pressed until now:
4m5r4m5e4m5r4m5r4m5e4m5r4m5r4m5e4m5r4m5r4m5e4m5r4m5r4m5e
Thats exactly the same amount of clicks or button presses you would have to do if there was no MBS. The only difference is that for player D to achieve that perfect production he has to press 4m or 5e or 5r exactly every 2.5 seconds. If he slips up he will probably overproduce some units and screw up his analogy, or they will be created later than they could. Therefore he is probably spamming 4m 5e 5r a bit more just to make sure.
So he has probably pressed until now:
4mmm5rrr4mmm5ee4mmm5rr4mmm5r4mmm5ee4mmm5rr4mmm
5rr4mmm5ee4mm5rr4mm5rr4mmm5e4mm5rrr4mm5r4mm5ee4m
Notice that the more his economy grows the smaller that time limit will grow. And he has to micro all that army, expand, produce buildings and counter whatever his opponent will do.
And a final example. Lets say you play Protoss, the game has got pretty hectic, you have all your 6 gates linked to 4, you just finished a micro intensive battle so your resources have pilled up to 500 minerals 700 gas and you just NEED two extra high templars for that Archon, before round two of the fight begins in a split second. What do you do ?
Good reasoning but, ironically, the result of implementing MBS is contrary to what pro-MBS crowd wants - we're now required to have speed instead of decision making in order to maintain good macro: you need to press the necessary combination every couple seconds, there's no need for macro cycles and micro-to-macro decision making (strategy). That's actually pretty hilarious.
I don't care whether they cut MBS or not, anymore. I'm waiting for the beta. 
|
I really dont understand why there needs to be an argument at all. Why don't you just add a switch to the game, like say different game types, that allow the host of the game to chose how it's going to be played? Have a 'Default' with MBS, automining, no-selection-cap, autocast and whatever bells and whistles you want to add, and a 'Classic' mode with things as they were in SC1. Shouldnt take too many ressources to implement and will cover your ass.
I mean, in SC1, they implemented a whole bunch of game types (Melee, Greed, FFA, KotH, UMS etc TvB later), or a default speed of 5 (who uses that anyways?), and the game evolved to what it is - speed 7 and TvB/Melee, the rest having been abandoned. Just do the same in SCII and let the players decide what they want. I mean in primary school football you dont call off-side every minute, so why not have different, chosable rule sets for different 'leagues' of players too?
|
The thing is both parties (anti-MBS and pro-MBS WC3 players) want the settings the're in favour of to be default in ladder games and tournaments, so Blizzard would have to support either side. Splitting the community even more is not a good idea either. Not to mention balancing the game for two TOTALLY different modes... We're talking about two types of melee games - other types you've mentioned are not competitive.
This has already been discussed plenty of times, so, please, don't bring old solutions. It's MBS Discussion III after all.
|
On February 24 2008 07:28 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2008 03:09 fusionsdf wrote:On February 23 2008 03:48 FrozenArbiter wrote:On February 22 2008 22:58 BluzMan wrote:
Just to add 2 cents since there's a talk about Dawn of War balance.
This game was dominated by Eldar from it's start to the release of two expansion. Right now, with ridiculous 7 races (and 2 more to come with the THIRD expansion pack) balance isn't really an issue anymore, but back then when it was only four of them, it was Eldar > SM ~ CSM > Ork and an alternate balance pattern of CSM Defiler tech > SM & Eldar & Ork. I've kinda played DoW ladder and I must say the balance issues with it were SO evident that I had no idea why nobody was doing anything. Eldar had close to 60% global winrate on ladder, Orks had < 45%. Basically, there was a thread about Warp Spider unit spawned every single day on the strat forums and another one about Defilers with some minor rants on Word of the Emperor/plasmarines since people at least had ideas of how to counter it. Seriously, balance in DoW was abysmal.
So, funnily enough, I can't say that "Dawn of War balance team leader" is a good resume point, their balance team had quite a bad reputation. Nevertheless, it might have to do something with the game's core mechanics, being close to impossible to balance "the right way", so that guy might do better at Blizzard. Otherwise, dunno, I can't probably be considered a StarCraft expert, but I'm one of those few who do understand something about the game and are content with MBS at the same time.
I seriously think that there are much more time-consuming tasks at SC than clicking buildings (it seriously takes like 1-2 seconds to click them all and order units), and warpgates simply won't work without MBS. Autoclone, at the same time, is a terrible feature, and if not limited to workers, it WILL ruin the game.
Someone needs to take a test and analyze a pro FPVOD to see how much time is being devoted to different tasks. I won't be surprised if actual production takes a little time and most of it is invested into micro, rebinding (seriously, I was amazed when I saw a Reach's FPVOD at how much time he spends to proprely assemble his control groups) and constructing buildings. For your information, David Kim only worked on the last game, Dark Crusade, which you say is pretty balanced :-) Yes, but they had about 4 other top former starcraft players on the team before him I'm pretty sure They being blizzard? And 4? As far as I know he's replacing Pillars, that's the only other person we've been told about. What I can't understand is the negativity towards him when his credentials are absolutely AMAZING, and he's even vouched for by someone as respectable as Mora. I mean this guy loves SC, plays it at a very high level and has a ton of balance experience - sure, Pillars is an RTS genius and would have done a good job, but this was a great replacement. Maybe I don't get your post, which is very possible since I'm not sure what you're saying. I'm just sort of surprised that nobody else is as excited about having someone like him working on SC2 as I am.
they being relic
And no offense, but even with all those other talents, the game still turned out eye candy.
Didnt mora used to work for relic as well?
In an interview I saw, the balance team was making hints that their balance ideas all had to be approved by the designers.
So if the designers are set on a specific vision, it doesnt matter how many top players you have on the balance team.
Like I've said before, until they test it with a bunch of sc top players outside of the design/balance team, I'm going to be worried.
It doesnt hurt that I think such a test would come out against invasive mbs.
|
On February 25 2008 02:13 maybenexttime wrote:
anti-MBS and pro-MBS WC3 players
Whoa subtile.
At this point of the design process MBS or SBS is not a balance question - MBS doesn´t instabreak the possiblity for a balanced game unlike, say, 7 races. It does however have a effect HOW to balance wich invalidates the "switch" solution unfortunately.
Back when SC2 was oficially anounced SC had a big reinflux of new and old Players - how many of these are still playing SC NOW?
It was a good opportunity for Blizzard to look what parts of the old UI the players were uncompfortable with and had to be changed. They didn´t actually WANT to change most of the stuff wich is indicated a bit indirectly like when they compare 12 unit to unlimited selection (were testing it, etc.)but apperantly many "new" players were uncompfortable with it.
(It always looked like a indirect disatvantage for the Zerg to me)
One of the slides at GDC said after all: "If it looks broken to the Player it IS broken.".
SC´s UI feels "wrong" to many Players that didn´t Play SC for 10years but always the lates RTSes, like C&C, Warhammer, even Warcraft3 etc...
Like it or not a new bar in Ergonomic control for RTS was set and SC2 will be mesured at that.
It is a bit like the optical advancements, the only genre that gets away with 2D today are the Fighting Games(?), even Jump and Runs have to add the 3rd dimension to be considered viable for the market.
Edit:
On a different matter, why is it always SC players that have to test the game? Why not top DC or WC3 Players that also should have a clue about RTS Balance and it might help prevent SC2 from turning into a simple remake. And considering that the Game is supposed to be balanced on every skilllevel they should also add less skilled gamers to their closed BETA team.
|
Yes. They have to listen.
Most RTS base their basic gameplay on lore. You have one truck mining tiberium. Or you have workers mining gold and chopping wood. Totally lore based.
But then it's discovered that one gives superior gameplay because it gives more depth and dynamics to the economy.
Before they even start to decide on a single concept they need to ask their balance team/competitive gaming specialists what kind of basic gameplay would be best for the game. Hell, they need to have this expertise themselves.
Obviously having a lot of small resource gathering units is superior to having a single big one.
But why then doesn't every game copy Starcraft here?
Same with tech tree/scouting/strategy, etc.
They need to base all the basic game concepts around what creates the best gameplay.
|
For god's sake, the main core of the pro-mbs argument is to allow things to be easier for WC3 players and new players alike to a sequel of one of the most hardest challening RTS games ever. Starcraft was shaped and molded to how it was without any MBS, you defeated your opponent by having practiced macro or putting the time and effort to do so; Most veterens are Anti-MBS, because they understand the mechanics of the game and they're command of the game is stronge, whereas WC3 players are not even near that skill level. Why listen to new players whom have not followed the game or do not posess a complex understanding, unlike the veterens,and when they have not followed SC as extensively? Why let them dictate what should or should not be in the game at all or let them have any representation at all when they have no idea how Starcraft truly works or why Starcraft became the challenging sport that it was incomparison to the Anti-MBS crowd?
|
MBS may also really be needed... warp gates would be a total pain in the ass to use without MBS.
Being able to hotkey your static defense and focus fire would also be nice.
Same with rally points. Re-assigning rally points in SC1 is a total desaster that costs way too much time.
It really doesn't mean that adding MBS will break the game no mater what. It depends on the gameplay. I agree it would break SC1 if you'd add it, but most changes to SC1 would break it (balance is a fragile thing), and it's SC2 after all.
Blizzard also won't make a really stupid decision when designing the successor to one of the most successful games of all time.
I'd bet money that many of anti MBS posters will actually start to like it once the game is released, and maybe even find it necessary...
|
On February 25 2008 03:30 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2008 02:13 maybenexttime wrote:
anti-MBS and pro-MBS WC3 players Whoa subtile.
I meant anti-MBS SC players and pro-MBS WC3 players were those two parties, as pro-MBS SC players do not care about competitiveness (well, a handful of them do), hence they don't care what's the default setting for ladder games.
At this point of the design process MBS or SBS is not a balance question - MBS doesn´t instabreak the possiblity for a balanced game unlike, say, 7 races. It does however have a effect HOW to balance wich invalidates the "switch" solution unfortunately.
Back when SC2 was oficially anounced SC had a big reinflux of new and old Players - how many of these are still playing SC NOW?
It was a good opportunity for Blizzard to look what parts of the old UI the players were uncompfortable with and had to be changed. They didn´t actually WANT to change most of the stuff wich is indicated a bit indirectly like when they compare 12 unit to unlimited selection (were testing it, etc.)but apperantly many "new" players were uncompfortable with it.
(It always looked like a indirect disatvantage for the Zerg to me)
One of the slides at GDC said after all: "If it looks broken to the Player it IS broken.".
SC´s UI feels "wrong" to many Players that didn´t Play SC for 10years but always the lates RTSes, like C&C, Warhammer, even Warcraft3 etc...
Like it or not a new bar in Ergonomic control for RTS was set and SC2 will be mesured at that.
It is a bit like the optical advancements, the only genre that gets away with 2D today are the Fighting Games(?), even Jump and Runs have to add the 3rd dimension to be considered viable for the market.
Edit:
On a different matter, why is it always SC players that have to test the game? Why not top DC or WC3 Players that also should have a clue about RTS Balance and it might help prevent SC2 from turning into a simple remake. And considering that the Game is supposed to be balanced on every skilllevel they should also add less skilled gamers to their closed BETA team.
Well, I for example played CNC Generals as my first RTS. Then I switched to WC3 and played it for like 2 years, then I switched to DoW and experimented with some other games. After some time I came across Armies of Exigo, and only then was I hooked on with StarCraft. Getting used to the interface didn't take me too much time.
As for GDC, how about Pardo talking about "breaking their rules" or StarCraft's "twitch gameplay?"
The balance team for SC2 has only 3 competent SC players btw.
|
Getting a bit off the point here, but i just have to ask this:
How many of you will actually go as far as not playing/buying the game if it has the features you dislike (MBS/SBS) ?
|
I'd say none of the anti-MBS people and probably some pro-MBS people. The latter (I mean the bnet forums type) often want to do things the easy way (just look up some threads about further automating micro and macro - production looping, smart move command with autocast for things like lockdown, queues for Zerg, etc., just LOL).
|
Well the first part was basically me being annoyed at valuing Players opinion after their background. I have the same issue at arguments like: "Don´t listen to him, he has only 100 Posts!".
The comment about "new old" Players came after simply asking them (that kind of player rarely visits TL.net). The significant part is that you had to get USED to the SC UI, meaning it wasn´t intuitive enough.
You are right, they are very fond of "Twitch" gameplay, wich means they had very good reasons to remove some of it. I even pointed that out.
Edit:
On February 25 2008 04:07 Klouvious wrote:
Getting a bit off the point here, but i just have to ask this:
How many of you will actually go as far as not playing/buying the game if it has the features you dislike (MBS/SBS) ?
I will propably preorder it i.e. buy it in any case.
If the game ends up uncompfortable to play I would not bother with the official ladder, but instead play something like Spacedota that doesn´t even have Multiple buildings to select (man TDs would be a pain to play without MBS!).
|
Actually CNC3 interface takes A LOT more getting used to. You also have to get used to interface of games like DoW e.g.
|
On February 25 2008 03:41 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
Being able to hotkey your static defense and focus fire would also be nice.
Imo it would make defence too easy therefore less rush and push potential (same goes for ridiculous aoe3-like gun on main building which basically means 'the developers don't want you to rush at all until this time kthx?')
Same with rally points. Re-assigning rally points in SC1 is a total desaster that costs way too much time.
But it is the difference between winning and losing a battle often. If everyone has perfect rally control, there is less point to trying to confuse and disorientate an enemy in a bitter pitched battle, because they can focus much more on the fighting. And you can spend more time checking your base for harass as opposed to looking for your buildings or using the Fkeys ---> less people use harass and the game loses a dimension.
I'd bet money that many of anti MBS posters will actually start to like it once the game is released, and maybe even find it necessary...
Well this I'm interested in. TBH I'm gona follow the korean pro scene. The pro's are at the pinnacle, and I want to aim for the pinnacle whenever I do something. I just hope Blizzard let the game be modded by Esports association so it can be turned from a noobish instant-gratification westernized game to something which stands the test of time yet again.
All this crap about sequels etc...GTA San Andreas is identical to GTA Vice City in UI, yet they feel like completely different games cos of all the new stuff and areas. If you just add a bunch of units and mechanics, but keep the core UI, I bet the game will be received better. (on a side-note, that's pretty much what they have done for smash bro's melee --> brawl and it has been received really well afaik)
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On February 25 2008 03:18 fusionsdf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2008 07:28 FrozenArbiter wrote:On February 24 2008 03:09 fusionsdf wrote:On February 23 2008 03:48 FrozenArbiter wrote:On February 22 2008 22:58 BluzMan wrote:
Just to add 2 cents since there's a talk about Dawn of War balance.
This game was dominated by Eldar from it's start to the release of two expansion. Right now, with ridiculous 7 races (and 2 more to come with the THIRD expansion pack) balance isn't really an issue anymore, but back then when it was only four of them, it was Eldar > SM ~ CSM > Ork and an alternate balance pattern of CSM Defiler tech > SM & Eldar & Ork. I've kinda played DoW ladder and I must say the balance issues with it were SO evident that I had no idea why nobody was doing anything. Eldar had close to 60% global winrate on ladder, Orks had < 45%. Basically, there was a thread about Warp Spider unit spawned every single day on the strat forums and another one about Defilers with some minor rants on Word of the Emperor/plasmarines since people at least had ideas of how to counter it. Seriously, balance in DoW was abysmal.
So, funnily enough, I can't say that "Dawn of War balance team leader" is a good resume point, their balance team had quite a bad reputation. Nevertheless, it might have to do something with the game's core mechanics, being close to impossible to balance "the right way", so that guy might do better at Blizzard. Otherwise, dunno, I can't probably be considered a StarCraft expert, but I'm one of those few who do understand something about the game and are content with MBS at the same time.
I seriously think that there are much more time-consuming tasks at SC than clicking buildings (it seriously takes like 1-2 seconds to click them all and order units), and warpgates simply won't work without MBS. Autoclone, at the same time, is a terrible feature, and if not limited to workers, it WILL ruin the game.
Someone needs to take a test and analyze a pro FPVOD to see how much time is being devoted to different tasks. I won't be surprised if actual production takes a little time and most of it is invested into micro, rebinding (seriously, I was amazed when I saw a Reach's FPVOD at how much time he spends to proprely assemble his control groups) and constructing buildings. For your information, David Kim only worked on the last game, Dark Crusade, which you say is pretty balanced :-) Yes, but they had about 4 other top former starcraft players on the team before him I'm pretty sure They being blizzard? And 4? As far as I know he's replacing Pillars, that's the only other person we've been told about. What I can't understand is the negativity towards him when his credentials are absolutely AMAZING, and he's even vouched for by someone as respectable as Mora. I mean this guy loves SC, plays it at a very high level and has a ton of balance experience - sure, Pillars is an RTS genius and would have done a good job, but this was a great replacement. Maybe I don't get your post, which is very possible since I'm not sure what you're saying. I'm just sort of surprised that nobody else is as excited about having someone like him working on SC2 as I am. they being relic And no offense, but even with all those other talents, the game still turned out eye candy. Didnt mora used to work for relic as well? In an interview I saw, the balance team was making hints that their balance ideas all had to be approved by the designers. So if the designers are set on a specific vision, it doesnt matter how many top players you have on the balance team. Like I've said before, until they test it with a bunch of sc top players outside of the design/balance team, I'm going to be worried. It doesnt hurt that I think such a test would come out against invasive mbs.
Uhm can you please name these other 4 top SC players that worked for relic? Yes, relic has Mora, as far as I'm aware he never worked on anything but Company of Heroes. BC.Korn also used to work/works for them I think, but again, on Company of heroes.
And as I also think I said before, I'm almost positive blizzard has already said they will bring in progamers to test the game later on.
When it comes to multiple building selection for the purposes of setting rally points I'm 100% for it. This is because you can never have enough hotkeys to set rallypoints with your 20 gateways, so it's just super inconvenient.
|
One thing to keep in mind is that Blizzard is the gaming company that is the most serious about balance testing and that it's also the only company which really has the money do it seriously.
Unlike every other gaming company on earth they don't have to rush SCII out of the door so I expect it to be a lot more balanced when it hits the shelf than pretty much any other game.
|
i) agree that the playing field has to remain constant. mbs seems to be the future, so, only mbs.
ii) if the skill level of the game can be capped, it's not difficult enough. blizz should release this game with a default speed of like 3/40, with 40 being 100% IMPOSSIBLE, not under their definition, but dave's definiton, and then ramp up the maximum speed another 10%
iii) failing the implementation of that, make everything die really really fast
iv) if the game is so easy that good players always have nothing to do because mbs makes it too easy, then the game sucks and it will die
v) the failure of a videogame has no material impact on my life.
|
On February 25 2008 03:36 Jockeraroo wrote:
For god's sake, the main core of the pro-mbs argument is to allow things to be easier for WC3 players and new players alike to a sequel of one of the most hardest challening RTS games ever. Starcraft was shaped and molded to how it was without any MBS, you defeated your opponent by having practiced macro or putting the time and effort to do so; Most veterens are Anti-MBS, because they understand the mechanics of the game and they're command of the game is stronge, whereas WC3 players are not even near that skill level. Why listen to new players whom have not followed the game or do not posess a complex understanding, unlike the veterens,and when they have not followed SC as extensively? Why let them dictate what should or should not be in the game at all or let them have any representation at all when they have no idea how Starcraft truly works or why Starcraft became the challenging sport that it was incomparison to the Anti-MBS crowd?
When compacted, your stance boils down to two separate arguments. The first goes something like:
If it's not broke don't fix it.
This is a pretty common point of view. But if nobody ever tried to improve anything that was annoying or bothersome just because it already "worked", we'd still be living in caves, huddling under animal skins. It works, but it can get better. It's not without risk, its entirely possible that what you're trying to improve will just get worse, but someone has to try if this genre is to evolve, and I'd trust no company more to do just that than Blizzard.
The second part of your argument is:
The people who are best at Starcraft1 should be the only ones allowed input for Starcraft2.
However, please note that the people who are best at this game may have ulterior motives besides wanting to make a better game. It's possible that they are simply people just like you, afraid of change. It's possible that they don't want all the hard work they spent overcoming a limited UI to go to waste. Like the hardcore raiders in WoW, they don't want the expansion because if the next noob who buys WoW can get better gear than they have out of the next 5 player dungeon, what the hell did they do wasting all that time in black temple anyway? I faced this when the Burning Crusade was launched, and I know, it sucks a whole lot, it does, but if not for the new content, people would stop playing and WoW would die.
Veterans know Starcraft1 better than most people. But does that mean they have anything more useful to add about a completely new game, Starcraft2, than a newb? They might, but don't take it for granted. Very possibly, the veterans know even less about how the new game should be designed because they are too encroached in their current favorite for them to be truly objective. Maybe they want it to play as close to their current favorite as possible, maybe they just want a visual upgrade, maybe they don't want the sequel at all, posting their views simply because of resentment. New players bring objectivity to the game, along with some whining and some bitching about them losing so much, but I don't think their input is useless.
I'm not stating the above is fact, I'm saying that it's a possible reason why game designers might want to listen to more people than just the veterans. Just because they are good at a game doesn't mean they know squat about how to make one.
|
MBS won't just kill macro, it will kill micro as well.
If you go through the pimpest plays, almost all of the micro-specific ones are one player microing against a player who isnt.
If both players have the free time to micro to their hearts content, paying attention to your units and properly microing loses value since you dont get any efficiency advantage over your opponent.
If both players only have to go back to their base to build buildings or upgrade, they spend 95% of their time watching their units...which means both progamers will likely be able to micro to about the same extent...micro players are based on their sacrifice of macro for micro, not their ability to use micro techniques.
If players are equivalent in both macro and micro, strategy is the only differentiator at the pro level, and thats a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
