On March 06 2010 16:21 Zamiel wrote:
While I acknowledge and understand that MP3 results in a bigger file size, I think that it is prudent that the TL staff looks at the essence of what a podcast is: something that you will listen to, on your ipod/Zune, while in the car or on the bus.

Now while I don't claim to make any predictions about where the vast majority of TL users listen to this podcast, it stands to reason that there is a large percentage that indeed listen to it in this fashion. And making those users go through extra work of converting it to mp3... I don't know, just seems like a destroys the original intent of the cast for the benefit of saving a buck. =(

On March 07 2010 00:47 jetpower wrote:
Ok ,so the bandwith is that bad? However i want to point out that vorbis might not better for voice than lame abr mp3, especially because the version you're using (1.20) doesn't contain last improvements

Sure, seeing some of the micro battles of pro players is impressive. About the same kind of impressive to see people pulling off a basketball match in a foot deep of snow. It was about time this playing field was cleared of all this.

On March 07 2010 05:48 imbecile wrote:
@Hot_Bid
The heavy burden on the SC1 player to constantly do menial tasks takes away a lot of the capacity ta actually implement the cool strategies you come up with. Yes, a strategy can be copied quite easily. But what is the saying? No plan survives contact with the enemy. If you lack on the spot decision making and situational awareness, copying strategies won't do you much good.

I'm just of the opinion that in a strategy game, the dominant factor in winning should be strategy, not button pressing. Sure, in a real time setting, fast and precise mechanics help a lot,and you will still have a big advantage over your opponent in SC2 with it. But I think it was far too dominant in SC1. Most of the spells weren't used, because it was mechanically too demanding. It's not like Jaedong was the only one to think of maybe using queens. The unit was there from day one. It's rather that the bad interface prevented everyone not at Jeadong level and practicing 14 hours a day from using it.

And it also doesn't take a genius to think of multi front attacks. But the bad interface prevents most people from even trying them.

On March 07 2010 20:45 imbecile wrote:
@Daigomi

So when implementing something like "group of scourge, attack group of corsair" takes a few dozen keypresses and clicks to set up and execute the cloning, that means it increases the strategic depth to you?

My point is, don't make 200APM the prerequisite to do most basic things anyone can and does think of.

You wanna fight your opponent, not the interface.

On March 07 2010 23:47 imbecile wrote:
@Daigomi again

I'm not really complaining about how physically demanding it is. Although carpal tunnel seems to be a problem among pros. What I'm aiming at is this:

There are several different kind of mental tasks.

The boring repetitive, grindingly demanding robotic ones. Stuff like sorting files into shelves, doing long hand division on paper. Sudoku. E.g. all the stuff computers are good at and are used for to spare us poor humans from having to do them all the time.

And then there are the fun unpredictable, daringly demanding creative ones. Stuff like recognizing patterns, bluffing, making value judgments of importance, playing Go. E.g. all the stuff computers aren't good at and people don't really want computers to do for them.

The major part of the mechanically demanding stuff in SC1 (micro or macro) was of the repetitive grinding kind. The poster examples of tasks you would wanna automate and that are easy to automate.

If you like to have to manually "aim" with each melee unit separately, because the computer does such a horrible job of it, how would you like if you had aim manually aim with each ranged unit separately, because the computer does such a horrible job of it? And why not give all units the horrible pathing of dragoons if you like it so much (although pathing is not exactly easy for computers).

The aim of a strategy games, especially those that are primarily played aganst other humans, must be to reduce the first kind of task as much as possible and maximize the second kind of tasks. For puzzle games it is almost the other way around. Which is also fine, tetris is great.

On March 08 2010 05:20 Vedic wrote:


How does controlling specific units add strategy? Strategy is an elaborate pre-planned action. Tactics would be closer to what you would be supporting, but it's not even that, really - more just mechanical control.



Yes, these decisions would be strategy and tactics - the implementation of them, not the control of them. SC2 rewards HOW you do things, instead of how often you do them.

On March 08 2010 14:56 Vedic wrote:


That isn't strategic, though - that is tactical. Strategy would be build order, and pre-planned out responses to variable reaction of your opponent. This is a common mistake. You're discussion is on the merits of mechanical control to a strategy game, which is like arguing the merits of APM in Chess. The more you introduce such mechanics, the less it is about strategy, and the more it is about tactics.

There is a middle ground, otherwise we could just play Chess or Go.

His argument is that you shouldn't need absurd hand speed for the most basic of tactical activities - a valid point in a strategy game. Just because I can't control 2 muta groups at once like Jaedong doesn't mean I can't understand how it's done, or the reasons to do it. In the grand scheme of a strategy game, it's the reasons that matter, not the manipulation of the interface.

On March 08 2010 20:21 Vedic wrote:


It would decrease the tactics, not the strategy. Again, you seem to misuse these concepts. I'm not against the use of decision making in a fast-paced scenario that is directly involved in strategy, but merely against the idea of artificially inflating it with unrelated mechanical fluff. Perhaps an example would make the difference more obvious... Would you assert that Chess and Go are not strategic, merely because you have the time to make decisions? Would you believe that adding mechanical ability to them would be more strategic? For instance, would it be more strategic to have to dribble a basketball while playing Chess? How about doing it while playing SC? Would it be even more strategic if you could do it with 2 balls?

It's not about the range of difficulty, it's about unnecessary difficulty. I type at roughly 120 words per minute, but I used to have to find each key with my pointer fingers. The GOAL of typing is to produce words, and so typing on a keyboard would represent straight strategy. On the other hand, if I had to use a controller to move a robot that hit keys, and the controller only had a limited axis joystick with 2 buttons, that would be an example of the hoops you are jumping through for the manipulation of the interface in Brood War.

Secondly, all your arguments seem to boil down to the removal of tactics which even a game as strategic as chess cannot live without. In chess, getting your knight to the outpost on D5 is a fine strategy, but you still need to actually control it. Just being able to think that that would be good is not enough. Similarly in SC, thinking that you want your mutas to go in and snipe scvs is a good plan, but you need to actually do it. And in doing it, just like in chess, the opponent may implement something to stop you, and you need to be there to counteract his movement. In chess your resource is your moves, if you had an infinite number of moves you could implement any strategy perfectly, but you don't, so the challenge is how to best use your limited resources to achieve multiple simultaneous goals. In starcraft, your resource is how quickly you can make decisions, decisions which include the precise movement of your pieces and the overall gameplan, and the fun is seeing how effectively you manage your limited resources to achieve your goals.

To be fair, Chess does degenerate into tactics at the higher levels of play (mainly due to the limited and static layout), but this isn't true of Go.

On March 08 2010 03:52 Daigomi wrote:
<font size=4>Low quality mp3 podcast for those interested</font>