|
On February 25 2008 06:15 FrozenArbiter wrote:
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.
I´m surprised to hear this. SBS being inconvenient is THE main reason (at least for me) for wanting MBS. On the other hand this argument is countered by stating that this very inconvenience is vital to SC gameplay.
fusionsdf just pointed it out, ending with a sentence that I find highly interesting: "...strategy is the only differentiator at the pro level, and thats a problem."
Strategy in a Strategy game!? It is supposed to be the deciding factor, Micro and Macro should be supporting ablilities to your Strategy! The winner in a strategy game should be the player with the better strategy, not the faster one. Some Strategies that could be possible (and impressive) in SC are invalidated since they are to hard to pull of mechanically - a shame in my opinion. When they DO get pulled of they are worthy Pimpest Plays though.
Speed shoul give you an advantage-fine but it shouldn´t be the deciding factor especially if that forces the game to be inconvenient.
As I understood fusionsdf the main SC Strategy would be to rely on the enemy being distracted elsewere by the UI to gain a advantage. Not smart proxies or something fancy like that, just praying that the enemy is looking somewhere else. SHOULD it be like that?
|
Tactics should the decisive factor, not strategy.
Otherwise the game turns into a build order rock-paper-scissors with poker-esque scouting/gambling.
|
On February 25 2008 06:15 FrozenArbiter wrote:
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.
but you never have enough hotkeys to be able to train from 20 gateways either...which is super inconvenient
so then it becomes arbitrary what is deemed "nescessary" macro and whats not. In this example, making units with MBS bad, but setting rallies good. Why is there this thought? The only reason I can think of right now is because most players CAN'T mass rally now, and they would LIKE to mass rally. (kind of like the argument that people can't split their attention to macro from 10 raxes properly, but they would LIKE to) .actually think mass rally would break the game more than MBS unit training
What about we keep MBS for multiple training, and players can use use that extra freed up time for setting up rallies one building at a time. Well, that just not intuitive.
If MBS is implemented, would you rather it be implemented with "smart-training" (smart casting sort of) or not? Where the computer finds an empty rax or the rax with the shortest queue or the rax with a unit whos going to finish training the soonest. I think WC3 just queues it in the first rax, and continues, until there are no more resources. Not that anyone ever got more than two of any training facility anyways (in my experience)
|
I don´t think that Tactics and Strategy can be seperated clearly anyway. But to be clear, what kind of "skills" do you want to see rewarded, and if possible to what extend? SC does reward a good strategy/tacics, otherwise no one would bother with scouting.
Edit:
WC3 worked like that in the beginning but a sensible implication was quicly patched in, if I remember correctly.
|
On February 25 2008 09:57 fusionsdf wrote:
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.
yeah
this is REALLY important. You guys who want to make the UI super streamlined, it screws up the game when it comes to competitiveness. For the seventh trillion time, an RTS game based PURELY on strategy is frickin' lame.
I'll equate it to martial arts: If you put a boxer and a shoot wrestler in the ring, you have a higher chance of a) a spectacular takedown from the wrestler or b) a fantastic knockout from the boxer
If you put 2 boxers in the ring they pound each other for ages, or 2 wrestlers, they basically dry hump each other for a short while.
You WILL remove the flashy cool stuff and special sneak attacks, clever drops and flanks if you make macro ANY easier, in my opinion. I've seen it happen to all the other games which have done it :S.
wc3 is horribly over-microed. There's no such thing as a strong macro wc3 player. It's literally boring as hell. After about 3 surrounds and a few TP pro moves, you get bored of almost everything wc3 has to offer imo ¬¬.
|
... Just make a "High learning curve" thread, mbs si not the issue, the learning curve and skill difference is, if by some miracle sc 2 would be harder to learn and master even with mbs I'm sure everyone will be pleased. Oh and the ability to overcome a player by pure-macro. Adress those issues not "oh me gee you can select moar buildingz in 1 group and maek unitz ezy". From what I read about how the warp-gates work it's a step forward, they do not have que's and require the same amount of commands it took in sc 1 to produce units (to make a zealot you'll have too z+click within the pylon area, do the same for the next zealot, 4 actions for 2 zealots). This way it doesn't inhibit some players from playing but it rewards better players because they will be able to spawn units where they want unlike they're lazyer opponent who'll just que stuff up and have them in 1 spot and waste travel time.
Less emo plz.
|
On February 25 2008 12:40 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2008 09:57 fusionsdf wrote:
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. yeah this is REALLY important. You guys who want to make the UI super streamlined, it screws up the game when it comes to competitiveness. For the seventh trillion time, an RTS game based PURELY on strategy is frickin' lame. I'll equate it to martial arts: If you put a boxer and a shoot wrestler in the ring, you have a higher chance of a) a spectacular takedown from the wrestler or b) a fantastic knockout from the boxer If you put 2 boxers in the ring they pound each other for ages, or 2 wrestlers, they basically dry hump each other for a short while. You WILL remove the flashy cool stuff and special sneak attacks, clever drops and flanks if you make macro ANY easier, in my opinion. I've seen it happen to all the other games which have done it :S. wc3 is horribly over-microed. There's no such thing as a strong macro wc3 player. It's literally boring as hell. After about 3 surrounds and a few TP pro moves, you get bored of almost everything wc3 has to offer imo ¬¬.
Well, WC3 is vastly different from both SC1 and SC2. WC3 has several features that remove the need to macro (you need just a few workers, and very few expansions). Then there's the upkeep, heroes are the central part of the game, and so on.
To counter this, micro is the biggest aspect in WC3. You shouldn't think "lol there's just micro and strategy, what a noob game, where's the macro". Because micro is much more complex and diverse there than in SC. It's all about micro there, so there's a lot more micro possibilities. Macro gets replaced by advanced micro.
It's just a different game that has different priorities. If "micro only" were dull or shallow, WC3 wouldn't be the huge success that it is. Sure, in SC1, "micro only" would be dumb, but if you offer more possibilities to the player, it becomes a game that's complex as well, just in a different way.
SC2 is much more like SC1, units will die relatively fast, expanding a lot will be necessary (combine this with "using your resources wisely" and you have your macro skill (this is the most important part of macro anyway)), and large scale battles will occur regularly again.
|
Well it's more like the macro in wc3 is not that complex as it is in sc, it still exists though and does matter to some extent (for intance humans after fast expanding que the upgrades before going to low upkeep even if at that time it won't benefit any units because they have just footmen in that stage, however they gain time and have 1-1/1-0 units - mass spellbreakers and mortars vs ne for instance- by the time they push). Or if you plan to harras and go t3 after the same fast expand staying 52 food instead of 50 when you have just footmen is gonna bite you in the ass later. Also the undead banking who rather spend their resources in items (potions, rod, orb. scrolls etc) rather then units until the later part of the game. Also vs orc it's important to know how to waste the blademasters mana so he can harass less effectively and also how to distribue damage to his units to make him spend more gold on healing thus you know if you are able to play more defensively or aggresively depending on what you and him are using gold on. Wc3's macro is all about counting what you and you're opponent spend and make the right choice on how to use that information. However this is all relatively easy, can be learned through practice and it's not even half as hard as sc macro.
|
On February 25 2008 12:40 HamerD wrote:
this is REALLY important. You guys who want to make the UI super streamlined, it screws up the game when it comes to competitiveness. For the seventh trillion time, an RTS game based PURELY on strategy is frickin' lame.
Right now the destruction of competative play by either a good UI and/or more focus on Strategy is a simple asumption. We can prove neither for or against it without a Beta.
The only way to make it PURELY strategic would mean to make it turn based AND remove direct unit control from the player.
Even so "frickin' lame" is a personal opinion, and personally I´d like to see SC2 have a bigger focus on Strategy/Tactics rather than APM competitions.
Strategy and Tactics are not just a elaborate form of Rock Paper Scissors, but honestly that would go offtopic fast and I hope it is convincing enough if I point out that even Chess a game based purely on Strategy/Tactics (depending on definition) is very exiting and not random AT ALL.
|
On February 25 2008 09:35 Meh wrote:
Just because they are good at a game doesn't mean they know squat about how to make one.
But they know how to make a game wich they would be good at 
But really, currently in starcraft micro<macro since macro gives a safer win. However if starcraft 2 puts a bit more of the power towards micro and risky playing we would have a lot more games were the players use offensive strats and such to get an upper hand now that its harder to get it by macro means.
So, they made macro more effecient by reducing the time it takes, giving people more time to micro. Then they added a lot of ways to abuse your opponents defensive lines with micro heavy units were you can put your time instead of the lost macro clicks. This strengthens boxers type of play wich today is nearly dead at the top, but im sure that a lot of players will still go the macro approach of not taking many risks but instead go the vanilla way and rely on just playing that style better instead of trying to outsmart their opponent.
Btw, in starcraft you can just as well rename macro-micro players to lowrisk-highrisk players, beacuse thats what makes the styles different.
|
On February 25 2008 21:01 Klockan3 wrote:
So, they made macro more effecient by reducing the time it takes, giving people more time to micro. Then they added a lot of ways to abuse your opponents defensive lines with micro heavy units were you can put your time instead of the lost macro clicks. This strengthens boxers type of play wich today is nearly dead at the top, but im sure that a lot of players will still go the macro approach of not taking many risks but instead go the vanilla way and rely on just playing that style better instead of trying to outsmart their opponent.
It wont strengthen boxers type play at all. It will just chuck everyone into the same style of play. Honestly, look at a progamers FPview. They are able to macro and micro brilliantly right now. The reason boxers style is weak is because players are good enough to handle the micro that he sends at them while macroing so they are not beaten.
A common trend we are seeing in starcraft these days is that micro gods and macro gods are being phased out. Because most players can micro well enough to handle a micro god and macro well enough to handle a macro god at the same time. This is due to people getting better at the game and therefore finding the game easier.
You stand to remove most of the difficulty of macro with the new features, meaning every starcraft pro will have no problems keeping up in the macro war. Macro will become standardised. Everything then revolves around micro, and we will see the same game being played over and over again. There will be no room for micro or macro players, there will just be players who all play the same style. And the only thing serperating players will be subtle differences in micro (mainly because of mistakes by players), game imbalances and luck.
An RTS game's strategy is always going to revolve around Rock paper scissors effects. Thats about as complex as strategy can get in a real time environment. Theres nothing wrong with this as long as the game has more to it than choosing the correct strategy. Micro adds to this by giving players the ability to make another decision on top of their strategy which is how to control their troops. Macro in starcraft adds another layer by forcing the players to choose where they want to focus their attention and making tradeoffs between advantage now or advantage later.
By removing the macro layer, you then make the game all about 2 players with standardised armies clashing in a micro war to determine the winner. THIS IS BORING. Maybe you can stare at pretty graphics for games and games on end, but they get boring to everyone else. The game must be complex so that we dont see the same things occuring over and over again.
|
On February 25 2008 16:16 Loverman wrote:
... Just make a "High learning curve" thread, mbs si not the issue, the learning curve and skill difference is, if by some miracle sc 2 would be harder to learn and master even with mbs I'm sure everyone will be pleased. Oh and the ability to overcome a player by pure-macro. Adress those issues not "oh me gee you can select moar buildingz in 1 group and maek unitz ezy". From what I read about how the warp-gates work it's a step forward, they do not have que's and require the same amount of commands it took in sc 1 to produce units (to make a zealot you'll have too z+click within the pylon area, do the same for the next zealot, 4 actions for 2 zealots). This way it doesn't inhibit some players from playing but it rewards better players because they will be able to spawn units where they want unlike they're lazyer opponent who'll just que stuff up and have them in 1 spot and waste travel time.
Less emo plz.
They don't have queues but there's an icon telling you when and at how many Warp Gates the cooldown's done...
As for WC3 micro, it's not that complex. The way you micro your units is pretty linear: focus fire, draw damaged units, surround, block, etc. Abilities are more complex, but most of the time pretty straight forward anyway.
In SC not only are most units nonlinear in terms of micro, but the micro itself differs VASTLY from race to race. SC micro is distinct to the point where you don't just practice micro on a whole (like in WC3) but rather specific afpects of micro like Marine micro (spreading, distraction, going up the ramp, breaking the Sunken wall, etc.), Vulture micro (Spider Mine surrounding, blocking the approaching Zealots, luring enemy units so that they blow up enemy workers with mines, patrol micro; there's also a lot of game knowledge/tricks to that, like putting mines in specific places to prevent Reaver drops, preventing DTs, delaying expansions, "blocking" Gates, etc.), Reaver+Zealot/Dragoon distraction, Muta micro (hit n run - not so much after Overlord trick invention though ,spreading).
Sorry for the wall of text. ;p
I know that some WC3 players will disagree, but SC micro really is more distinct.
|
I feel like im repeating myself but i will restate this:
I believe you are overreacting. The effect that MBS has on the gameplay is not that large. MBS is not some form of Artificial Intelligence that plays the macro part of the game for you. All the desicions that have to taken without MBS are still there to be taken. MBS doesn't decide when to expo for you, it doesn't build buildings for you, it doesn't decide what kind of units and what combinations and what analogies of units you build . It doesn't remove the macro part of the game.
It generally does less than you fear it does.
The only difference in the early game is instead of having all the production buildings, of the same kind linked, to seperate hotkeys, they will be linked to one,two or three hotkeys instead.
Instead of having to 4z5z6z7z8z9z0z you will have to 4z4z4z4z4z4z4z, well unless you actually wait to have enough resources to produce from all of them at once. Which is not the most effective way to produce your units.
Linking all your production buildings to one hotkey has drawbacks.
Notice what happens though when you want to produce a combination of units:
Without MBS:
wait for resources,4z5z6s7s8i9t0t 2 zeals 2 stalkers 1 immortal 2 templars
You can do this in 1 to 7 steps.
With MBS and all your gates linked to 4:
You have to actually to do this in 4 to 7 steps.
wait for resoources,4z4z,wait for resources,4s4s,wait,4i,wait,4t4t
So you spend more attention on resources because if you wait for the resources to accumulate to do it in one move you will get 7 zeals instead.
Therefore you either have to pay a lot more attention to your production. Or you have to have your gates linked to more than 1 button, in the above example to 4 seperate buttons. Also notice that the more units you put into your combinations the more buttons you will have to have your gates linked to. And if you want to switch the analogies of units in the combinations you will have to either reassign the gates or divert more attention to your esource count.
An example:
You want 1 dt 2 ht 2 zeals 1 immortal and 1 stalker:
Without MBS, without returning to base:
4z5z6h7h8d9i0s 14 actions (1-7 steps, your choice)
With MBS,lets say you have 4 gates assigned to 4,3 gates assigned to 5, without returning to base:
4z, double click a gateway in the control group,cancel,s,4, double click another gateway,cancel,d,3h, double click a gateway in the control group,cancel,i, 17 actions (1 step)
Fewer actions to a minimum of 10 actions in 3 steps, which means you have to turn your attention to production three times instead of a minimum of one, if you want to benefit from mbs.
Of course you could actually assign 2 gates to 4,2 gates to 5,one gate to 6,one gate to 7,one gate to 8, but is that much better than SBS ??
Furthermore in the cases when you want to produce smaller amounts of units than your resources and production buildings allow MBS actually hurts you.
Example:
You just want 1 dark templar but you have 600 gas 800 minerals.
Without MBS you have to press: 4d
With MBS,you have 7 gates in group4, you have to press: 4, double click a gate,d.
When you begin to have more production buildings than hot keys, then is when finnaly MBS begins to make a diffference. Up until that point having each production building bound to a different hotkey is more beneficial, well unless all you do is produce a bunch of zeals every 30 or so seconds.
After this point, MBS allows you to skip the return back to the base part of the macro/micro circle at the cost of not having precise control of the amount of units you produce, unless you devote more time to macro than with SBS.
Again an example:
Lets say you have 4 barracks 12 factories and 2 starports. Without MBS you return to the base every 30 or so seconds and presicely decide how many of each unit you want.
With MBS you will probably have like 4 barracks in group 4, 3 factories in group 5 , 4 factories in group 6, 5 factories in group 7, 2 starports in group 8. Yes you no longer have to return to your base to produce the army, but if you turn your attention to production only once every 30 seconds
you can only produce combinations of 4 barracks units, 3-4-5, 7-5,4-8,3-9,12 factory units and 2
starport units. In order to achieve different combinations you will have to :
a) reassign the buildings, which requires you to return to their locations
b) seperately select production facilities by double clicking them in their respective groups
c) produce the desired units as soon as you have exactly the nesseccary resources for them, therefore diverting your attention to production more often.
TL:DR
In the early game MBS reduces the actions you would have to perform with SBS in 2 cases:
A) You do not produce as effectively as you can with SBS.
B) You pay more attention to your resources and production than with SBS.
In late game MBS allows you to retain your attention on the battlefield for longer, at the cost of either:
A) presicion and versatility in your unit numbers and analogies.
B) attention which is diverted to your resources and production.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
but you never have enough hotkeys to be able to train from 20 gateways either...which is super inconvenient
No, lets compare:
If you want to set the rally of 20 gates you have to select them one by one, then select the place you want them rallied to, either on the minimap, or on the screen (which means going back and forth), then if you lose control of that area you have to RESET ALL THOSE GATES.
Compare this to building from them, where they are most of the time tightly clustered and you can relatively easily (conveniently) just click click click. If you don't reset the rally points there's a pretty huge penalty btw.
As I've said countless times in the older iterations of this thread, it's all about finding the right balance. Hence why I'm opposed to some UI improvements, but in favour of others. Yes, it's arbitrary, but that's the only way to do it.
|
Good post, Klouvious. The decision of "when to macro" becomes "how to macro". Although I disagree with your point about versality suffering - you can have buildings groups in a specific manner to mirror the army composition you need. E.g. 8 Gates under 5 for Zealots, 3 Gates under 6 for Stalkers, 2 Gates under 7 for HTs, 2 Robos under 8, and Stargates under 9, or whatever. You'd only have to adjust it every now and then.
But in the end the result is contrary to what most pro-MBS people want. Macro becomes more about speed (aka spending your resources as you go all the time) as opposed to decision making (macro cycles, micro-to-macro decisions). This is, again, quite ironic. ^^
|
On February 25 2008 21:01 Klockan3 wrote:
But really, currently in starcraft micro<macro since macro gives a safer win. However if starcraft 2 puts a bit more of the power towards micro and risky playing we would have a lot more games were the players use offensive strats and such to get an upper hand now that its harder to get it by macro means.
Well I mean first of all I don't really think micro is dead. Flash, Jaedong, Casy, Luxury have all displayed phenomenal micro play recently.
Like I said before, I would draw a completely different conclusion from what would happen if you 'upset' the starcraft micro/macro balance. I would say that the easier macro is, the easier defending micro pushes will be, and therefore the less people will attempt them as it will be impossible to trick your opponent or catch them off guard when they have to divide their attention less. Also, various micro tricks will become so basic and normal to everyone that there'll be no magic in the game there, and people will be CRAVING for a complicated macro build.
Micro and macro HAVE to be balanced imo. A pure micro game like WC3 really is such a different thing, and tbh you should just go play medieval total war if you want that. If you want to get stuck into a real manly (C tasteless) rts you go SC because it's actually challenging on many levels.
And I really want to hammer this: Micro is ONE level. No matter how much you want to put into it, it's still just one bloody level. You can't have micro on many levels, you just have a lot of micro. Levels involve different skillsets, whereas micro is always going to just be economising your units.
I posit that SC has the maximum amount of micro and macro allowed in a game which is STILL balanced between the two, and that you should leave the mechanics that make this the case alone.
|
On February 26 2008 00:14 maybenexttime wrote:
Good post, Klouvious. The decision of "when to macro" becomes "how to macro". Although I disagree with your point about versality suffering - you can have buildings groups in a specific manner to mirror the army composition you need. E.g. 8 Gates under 5 for Zealots, 3 Gates under 6 for Stalkers, 2 Gates under 7 for HTs, 2 Robos under 8, and Stargates under 9, or whatever. You'd only have to adjust it every now and then.
But in the end the result is contrary to what most pro-MBS people want. Macro becomes more about speed (aka spending your resources as you go all the time) as opposed to decision making (macro cycles, micro-to-macro decisions). This is, again, quite ironic. ^^
Yes(Especially the first part) and no. You obviously, like so many before, completely forgot the new Players and the sub-korean-demigod skillevels.
While suboptimal, MBS allows the new players a much smoother gameplay. Don´t only look at the effect it would have on the top players.
|
On February 26 2008 02:39 Unentschieden wrote:
Yes(Especially the first part) and no. You obviously, like so many before, completely forgot the new Players and the sub-korean-demigod skillevels.
While suboptimal, MBS allows the new players a much smoother gameplay. Don´t only look at the effect it would have on the top players.
Frankly, I think we have to look at the impact on better players first, the long standing RTS pros. They are the ones who are going to be playing it the most and abusing it the most.
While casual enjoyment is certainly important, I think it's more difficult to concentrate on a game that is fun casually that transfers to pro-level depth than to create a deep game that happens to be fun to play lightly as well.
|
On February 26 2008 01:35 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2008 21:01 Klockan3 wrote:
But really, currently in starcraft micro<macro since macro gives a safer win. However if starcraft 2 puts a bit more of the power towards micro and risky playing we would have a lot more games were the players use offensive strats and such to get an upper hand now that its harder to get it by macro means. Well I mean first of all I don't really think micro is dead. Flash, Jaedong, Casy, Luxury have all displayed phenomenal micro play recently. Like I said before, I would draw a completely different conclusion from what would happen if you 'upset' the starcraft micro/macro balance. I would say that the easier macro is, the easier defending micro pushes will be, and therefore the less people will attempt them as it will be impossible to trick your opponent or catch them off guard when they have to divide their attention less. Also, various micro tricks will become so basic and normal to everyone that there'll be no magic in the game there, and people will be CRAVING for a complicated macro build. Micro and macro HAVE to be balanced imo. A pure micro game like WC3 really is such a different thing, and tbh you should just go play medieval total war if you want that. If you want to get stuck into a real manly (C tasteless) rts you go SC because it's actually challenging on many levels. And I really want to hammer this: Micro is ONE level. No matter how much you want to put into it, it's still just one bloody level. You can't have micro on many levels, you just have a lot of micro. Levels involve different skillsets, whereas micro is always going to just be economising your units. I posit that SC has the maximum amount of micro and macro allowed in a game which is STILL balanced between the two, and that you should leave the mechanics that make this the case alone.
I agree with the concept that micro and macro should be balanced. However, I don't find conclusive evidence that MBS sends the balance tipping disastrously in the level of micro.
Also, there are many more levels than micro and macro. Terrain, game flow, large scale battle planning, army positioning, unit mix, map/resource control, scouting. A chunk of time taken from macro doesn't directly flow into micro because there is still so much else going on.
Even at a pro level, I think micro pretty much sucks. Casy's is pretty awesome, but that's a rare exception, and I think it's a shame that only the top few pros have enough time to actually micro their units effectively.
|
On February 26 2008 02:39 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2008 00:14 maybenexttime wrote:
Good post, Klouvious. The decision of "when to macro" becomes "how to macro". Although I disagree with your point about versality suffering - you can have buildings groups in a specific manner to mirror the army composition you need. E.g. 8 Gates under 5 for Zealots, 3 Gates under 6 for Stalkers, 2 Gates under 7 for HTs, 2 Robos under 8, and Stargates under 9, or whatever. You'd only have to adjust it every now and then.
But in the end the result is contrary to what most pro-MBS people want. Macro becomes more about speed (aka spending your resources as you go all the time) as opposed to decision making (macro cycles, micro-to-macro decisions). This is, again, quite ironic. ^^ Yes(Especially the first part) and no. You obviously, like so many before, completely forgot the new Players and the sub-korean-demigod skillevels. While suboptimal, MBS allows the new players a much smoother gameplay. Don´t only look at the effect it would have on the top players.
The reason I am focusing on the more experienced part of the playerbase is because that is the part whose gameplay is affected by the UI mechanics the most. It is also these players in whose matchups you will actually see the benefits and drawbacks of MBS play an active role in the outcome. Furthermore it is about how MBS affects these players gameplay that is the source of the most controversy on the MBs issue.
The newer players will only see the positive effects of MBS, that is because they do not strive to achieve optimal production but an inferior production is sufficient for them. Anyone in his right mind can understand that MBS isn't going to suddenly make an average or bad player win any half-decent player.
Yes a "noob" can press 4z and make 8 zealots at once, but to do that the other player must have allowed him up to that point :
a) Survive !, any decent player would have scouted him by now, realized his opponent is a noob from a thousand different factors(build order, reaction to scouting, building placement,etc.. etc..) and probably put an early end to the game.
b) create an economy that sustains 8 gateway production, that means the other player allowed him to have at least on expo.
c) sat there doing nothing with his resources until they got to 800 and any half-decent player with the option of MBS will be producing more efficiently than that.
As for the statements that the gap between the top and almost the top will close due to MBS since their macro level will be the same.
First of all, MBS affects only the unit production part of macro, not the superior game sence, timing and reaction from witch progamers macro derives from. They still will know what (building or unit) to build, when to build and where to build it better than almost-progamers.
Yes decent players will be able to produce as current starcraft progamers do nowadays in terms of numbers, they may even do it better. However, the players at the progamer level, using their superior APM, game sence and situation assessment skills will achieve a much more optional
production, both in term of numbers and also unit analogies and combinations than the almost-progamers of tommorow . That is because they will be closer to the optimal unit production system than progamers nowadays, which will still be humanly unachievable after a certain point in the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
