|
you can only be in one spot at once
On January 26 2010 10:42 Dreadwave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2010 02:12 beetlelisk wrote:On January 23 2010 02:57 maybenexttime wrote:On January 22 2010 21:51 Aim Here wrote:On January 22 2010 19:24 IdrA wrote:
what they dont realize is that micro games are gonna become a whole lot more boring. alot of micro tactics depend on taking advantage of your opponents mistakes, many of which are caused by the fact that their attention is split 10 different ways. muta micro would be nearly worthless if terran could keep their screen on their mm group every single second.
half the reason harass is useful is because it gives you a multitasking advantage. As possibly the most skilless nooby on TL.net, I might be talking crap here, but doesn't the multitasking advantage still occur, regardless of whether it's micro or macro? Someone who can micro 3 control groups of mutas should still have a harassment advantage over a terran who can only focus on his one marine medic blob, and hasn't enough attention span left to defend two or three different places simultaneously. To add to what IdrA said. 1. Is it physically viable to micro 3 groups of units simultaneously? No, it's not. You can only be in one place at a time and if you leave your other units (most probably important ones like HTs) uncontrolled - they're an easy prey and you're not using them efficiently. You might as well do this in SC2. 2. Is it viable in-game? Not really. You'd have to invest too much resources and attention for too little pay-off. 3. Is this actually good for SC2 as a spectator sport? Hardly. The screen view can only show one place at a time. Not only will the audience miis out on a lot of the action but the game will also become confusing to them. Why do you try to speak for everyone when you speak for yourself? Especially when you are terran? Let's fix your post On January 23 2010 02:57 maybenexttime wrote:On January 22 2010 21:51 Aim Here wrote:On January 22 2010 19:24 IdrA wrote:
what they dont realize is that micro games are gonna become a whole lot more boring. alot of micro tactics depend on taking advantage of your opponents mistakes, many of which are caused by the fact that their attention is split 10 different ways. muta micro would be nearly worthless if terran could keep their screen on their mm group every single second.
half the reason harass is useful is because it gives you a multitasking advantage. As possibly the most skilless nooby on TL.net, I might be talking crap here, but doesn't the multitasking advantage still occur, regardless of whether it's micro or macro? Someone who can micro 3 control groups of mutas should still have a harassment advantage over a terran who can only focus on his one marine medic blob, and hasn't enough attention span left to defend two or three different places simultaneously. To add to what IdrA said. 1. Am I physically viable to micro 3 groups of units simultaneously? No, I'm not. I can only be in one place at a time and if I leave my other units (most probably important ones like HTs) uncontrolled - they're an easy prey and I'm not using them efficiently. I might as well do this in SC2. 2. Is it viable in-game? For me not really. I'd have to invest too much resources and attention for too little pay-off. 3. Is this actually good for SC2 as a spectator sport? Hardly. I like it more when the screen view can only show one place at a time. Not only will I miis out on a lot of the action but the game will also become confusing to me. Maybenexttime said simultaneous, what you are describing in your later posts in this thread isn't what he meant. With macro you have some room to do other things while the units are building, micro requires you to react to the opponent's micro actions/mistakes when they happen. If you are microing at three spots instead of one it is very easy to make mistakes because your screen cannot show more than one spot, if you happen to be watching one spot while your opponent is acting in another one you can't react to him as fast. Macro happens in cycles, and requires only attention at those moments, micro isn't like that.. Just reread what IdrA said: Show nested quote +On January 22 2010 19:24 IdrA wrote:
half the reason harass is useful is because it gives you a multitasking advantage. if you're the harasser you control when you engage, meaning you go back and macro and then send your shuttle in. your opponent has to be constantly aware of the shuttle and has to go respond to it when you choose, which is likely to disrupt his macro.
and things like big battles, that are based solely on the quality of your control and positioning, already get players full attention in sc1, even with manual macro. Proper micro demands nearly constant attention, it is physically impossible to watch more than one spot constantly in BW/SC2, so you will have to switch between multiple locations rapidly.
I don't know what exactly you try to imagine as simultaneous, I can see it's bad for you that I don't try to claim ridiculous bullshit.
I wrote earlier about different ways macro and micro players find the most joy in playing SC.
I want to "react to the opponent's micro actions/mistakes when they happen", you do not.
I want to be proud of my scouting and reaction time, it's those things that really will amuse me in SC2 progaming.
If you "happen to be watching one spot while your opponent is acting in another one" you can't react to him as fast; it's the way BW is.
I'd rather abuse macro handicaps to be able to try to pay attention all the time.
You prefer paying attention only to macro cycles, only "at those moments"?
IdrA described the way things are in SC1, a game without macro handicaps, without new pathing and finally with 12 unit selection limit.
Yes, it is physically impossible to watch more than one spot and somehow people can macro properly and do something else.
How? They switch between multiple locations rapidly, don't they? The best train to do that for money for ~12-15h daily and SC2 was claimed to be easier because of macro handicaps, wasn't it?
The more locations you attempt to monitor at once the greater the chance that you will miss something important and are too late to respond. Therefore engaging at multiple locations at once increases the risks of mistakes, nevermind that splitting your army is itself a risk because if your opponent doesn't he can beat your army by attack-moving over each small group. So yes, multiple simultaneous engagements change the risk-reward ratio, even if you have the skill to actually do it well.
If your opponent splits his army in three parts, you can split yours in two and crush two of his armies at once and then destroy the last one with the leftovers. This is strategically superior even if you actually have the ability to win the three battles at once through micro.
This is not a new argument, pretty much every later MBS thread had people come in and claim that people would now battle at multiple spots at once, Maybenexttime has made the above argument to so many times that it's not strange he got sick of repeating it to people who don't want to understand what he's saying
This is perfectly correct except people are not going sacrifice anything blindly for no gain.
I'm not going to split my army if I know splitting weakens it (aka there is no way to flank in any efficient way) and the soonest thing to happen is a battle with opponent's main army - army strong enough to not disregard it.
The only way you seem to be able to imagine action happening in multiple spots is by splitting your army.
Bio TvZ would be a great example of this happening in BW except, taking in account what Ret wrote - 2nd biggest favourite in this TSL, guy who made it to Korea etc, having way more mnm than needed is the key to steamrolling zerg - if you have excess of units you don't need to care about their well being as much. Plague and Dark Swarm are to balance things too.
Orange cloud of immunity and red substance of 250HP AoE damage are needed to help zerg out and nothing is really wrong with gameplay revolving about getting them faster?
On January 27 2010 10:31 Dreadwave wrote:
(...)I also explained why you can combine 1 macro and 1 micro task more easily than two micro tasks,
Let's see what IdrA writes about micro in response to my post...
I never said that microing in multiple spots is not feasible because of macro, I said it isn't feasible because microing in multiple spots at the same time is really hard even if that's all you have to do.(...)
I actually agreed with that but you didn't care to comment about post I wrote it in so far.
It happens that yesterday's Kolll versus Fenix series have shown great example of play I want and I will see in SC2, I mostly mean last game on Destination, finished with a vulture drop.
Notice they weren't microed but it doesn't mean they weren't used at all and this is what I'm talking about!
|
Dude for real, learn to organize your posts. Regardless of whatever insight you may or may not have, no one wants to try and read that messy shit.
|
Starcraft is like playing a piano...
You have your overall Song (Strategy)
And you fine tune and practice your song till you get it perfect which takes skill and practice.
SC2 you simply choose any song you like with little practice to overall execution and fundemental and advance techniques
|
On February 02 2010 10:30 Daedes wrote:with little practice to overall execution and fundemental and advance techniques
Oh wow I really don't understands what this means...
And, guys, the dick joke has been mentioned 50 times on this 22 pages... And 40 of those 50 times some smartass asks "am I the first..."... No, dude, you'r not!
Concerning the topic, Blizzard has to make the changes in order to attract new players, of course, we all know that and we aren't discussing about that... I believe in a compromise, auto-mining on, multy-building selection off, and everyone is happy...
But, certainly, there will be SC2 maps for SC1 and vice-versa, and only that will show us the true answer to this debate, in the meantime we can only speculate in darkness...
|
I read a load of the latest replies and I wonder... What exactly is it that youre arguing about? Everyones just spouting random opinions and responses to others opinions, but this shit isnt going anywhere. Loads of reasoning but I cant find the point anyones actually reasoning for or against.
|
On February 02 2010 07:51 LF9 wrote:
Dude for real, learn to organize your posts. Regardless of whatever insight you may or may not have, no one wants to try and read that messy shit.
If you meant my post, how do you like it now ?
|
On February 02 2010 14:17 SpavaM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 10:30 Daedes wrote:with little practice to overall execution and fundemental and advance techniques Oh wow I really don't understands what this means... And, guys, the dick joke has been mentioned 50 times on this 22 pages... And 40 of those 50 times some smartass asks "am I the first..."... No, dude, you'r not! Concerning the topic, Blizzard has to make the changes in order to attract new players, of course, we all know that and we aren't discussing about that... I believe in a compromise, auto-mining on, multy-building selection off, and everyone is happy... But, certainly, there will be SC2 maps for SC1 and vice-versa, and only that will show us the true answer to this debate, in the meantime we can only speculate in darkness...
When praticing a build or strat in starcraft, you pratice it over and over again for better execution. Also in starcraft yo pratice your "mechanics" which is the word i meant.
|
Honestly, I don't have any problem with making an interface that's able to select many units at once.
Player "A" has an army of 100 units, and decides to select all 100 of them under one hot key, and "attack moves" them into the enemy.
Player "B" has an army of 100 units, and decides to divide them into groups of twenty with hotkey's 1-5 with certain groupings including specific unit types. He decides to engage the advancing army of Player "A".
At this point, ask yourself the question. Who has the DISTINCT advantage in battle, the player who has his ENTIRE army selected at once, or the player who can give specific orders to portions of his army to attack specific targets in groups? Which player will be able to position his troops in a particular order, and micro his units effectively? Which player will likely win the conflict?
Now ask this, if Player A has 120 units, and Player B has 100 units, and the same scenario is applied, does Player B have the opportunity to "out micro" his opponent with his unit control? Is the outcome of the battle still a question of SKILL?
I don't think that selecting your entire army at once and sending it to a specific location will work as effectively as grouping your units yourself. it may even make grouping units EASIER.
Fact of the matter is, Starcraft is over ten years old, and Starcraft II will be a very different game, whether we like it or not. The interface will be different, and the overall game play will be different. The interface of the game needs to complement THE GAME ITSELF, not the previous title in the series. I fell that if Starcraft 2 tries too hard to be like it's predecessor, then it will ultimately fail.
In any case, if they do decide to ultimately limit the unit selection, I think it should be a number around 30-40. That's my opinion on the matter anyway
|
On February 02 2010 10:30 Daedes wrote:
SC2 you simply choose any song you like with little practice to overall execution and fundemental and advance techniques
Whether or not a unit selection limit is implemented or not in starcraft 2, there is no way to determine whether or not the game will require a high amount of dexterity because we haven't played the game yet. However, I do think that a person who has MORE dexterity then another will have an advantage in terms of unit control REGARDLESS of how many units he has the ability to select.
|
On February 04 2010 07:03 Divick_630 wrote:
In any case, if they do decide to ultimately limit the unit selection, I think it should be a number around 30-40. That's my opinion on the matter anyway
Why bother to limit it if the limit is meaningless except for causing occasional inconvenience to a zerg player with a lot of zerglings?
|
HOnestly I have no problem with MBS but automining is kind of gay... i mean how hard is it to keep 2 CC's hotkeyed when you have mbs... 1a 2a 3a 4tttvvvvv 5s 6s wil be 80% of the macro micro. I am curious to see if micro improves, but it will amke sc2 SO frustrating for new players because good player will simply multitask them to death.
|
On January 27 2010 10:31 Dreadwave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2010 20:32 beetlelisk wrote:On January 26 2010 10:42 Dreadwave wrote:On January 24 2010 02:12 beetlelisk wrote:On January 23 2010 02:57 maybenexttime wrote:On January 22 2010 21:51 Aim Here wrote:On January 22 2010 19:24 IdrA wrote:
what they dont realize is that micro games are gonna become a whole lot more boring. alot of micro tactics depend on taking advantage of your opponents mistakes, many of which are caused by the fact that their attention is split 10 different ways. muta micro would be nearly worthless if terran could keep their screen on their mm group every single second.
half the reason harass is useful is because it gives you a multitasking advantage. As possibly the most skilless nooby on TL.net, I might be talking crap here, but doesn't the multitasking advantage still occur, regardless of whether it's micro or macro? Someone who can micro 3 control groups of mutas should still have a harassment advantage over a terran who can only focus on his one marine medic blob, and hasn't enough attention span left to defend two or three different places simultaneously. To add to what IdrA said. 1. Is it physically viable to micro 3 groups of units simultaneously? No, it's not. You can only be in one place at a time and if you leave your other units (most probably important ones like HTs) uncontrolled - they're an easy prey and you're not using them efficiently. You might as well do this in SC2. 2. Is it viable in-game? Not really. You'd have to invest too much resources and attention for too little pay-off. 3. Is this actually good for SC2 as a spectator sport? Hardly. The screen view can only show one place at a time. Not only will the audience miis out on a lot of the action but the game will also become confusing to them. Why do you try to speak for everyone when you speak for yourself? Especially when you are terran? Let's fix your post On January 23 2010 02:57 maybenexttime wrote:On January 22 2010 21:51 Aim Here wrote:On January 22 2010 19:24 IdrA wrote:
what they dont realize is that micro games are gonna become a whole lot more boring. alot of micro tactics depend on taking advantage of your opponents mistakes, many of which are caused by the fact that their attention is split 10 different ways. muta micro would be nearly worthless if terran could keep their screen on their mm group every single second.
half the reason harass is useful is because it gives you a multitasking advantage. As possibly the most skilless nooby on TL.net, I might be talking crap here, but doesn't the multitasking advantage still occur, regardless of whether it's micro or macro? Someone who can micro 3 control groups of mutas should still have a harassment advantage over a terran who can only focus on his one marine medic blob, and hasn't enough attention span left to defend two or three different places simultaneously. To add to what IdrA said. 1. Am I physically viable to micro 3 groups of units simultaneously? No, I'm not. I can only be in one place at a time and if I leave my other units (most probably important ones like HTs) uncontrolled - they're an easy prey and I'm not using them efficiently. I might as well do this in SC2. 2. Is it viable in-game? For me not really. I'd have to invest too much resources and attention for too little pay-off. 3. Is this actually good for SC2 as a spectator sport? Hardly. I like it more when the screen view can only show one place at a time. Not only will I miis out on a lot of the action but the game will also become confusing to me. Maybenexttime said simultaneous, what you are describing in your later posts in this thread isn't what he meant. With macro you have some room to do other things while the units are building, micro requires you to react to the opponent's micro actions/mistakes when they happen. If you are microing at three spots instead of one it is very easy to make mistakes because your screen cannot show more than one spot, if you happen to be watching one spot while your opponent is acting in another one you can't react to him as fast. Macro happens in cycles, and requires only attention at those moments, micro isn't like that.. Just reread what IdrA said: On January 22 2010 19:24 IdrA wrote:
half the reason harass is useful is because it gives you a multitasking advantage. if you're the harasser you control when you engage, meaning you go back and macro and then send your shuttle in. your opponent has to be constantly aware of the shuttle and has to go respond to it when you choose, which is likely to disrupt his macro.
and things like big battles, that are based solely on the quality of your control and positioning, already get players full attention in sc1, even with manual macro. Proper micro demands nearly constant attention, it is physically impossible to watch more than one spot constantly in BW/SC2, so you will have to switch between multiple locations rapidly. The more locations you attempt to monitor at once the greater the chance that you will miss something important and are too late to respond. Therefore engaging at multiple locations at once increases the risks of mistakes, nevermind that splitting your army is itself a risk because if your opponent doesn't he can beat your army by attack-moving over each small group. So yes, multiple simultaneous engagements change the risk-reward ratio, even if you have the skill to actually do it well. If your opponent splits his army in three parts, you can split yours in two and crush two of his armies at once and then destroy the last one with the leftovers. This is strategically superior even if you actually have the ability to win the three battles at once through micro. This is not a new argument, pretty much every later MBS thread had people come in and claim that people would now battle at multiple spots at once, Maybenexttime has made the above argument to so many times that it's not strange he got sick of repeating it to people who don't want to understand what he's saying. The way you mangled his point 3 is either means malicious intent or completely missing his point. He's not arguing against multiple views, he's arguing that having many simultaneous battles is more confusing for the audience. He's not talking about technical barriers, he's talking about human limitations, with a proper studio setup anyone can do the screen within a screen thing. Some leagues already do the double fpview, but only earlygame because there isn't that much going on then. If the game is set up so that multiple simultaneous battle occur frequently, it's going to to make the game harder to follow for more casual spectators which will reduce appeal for them. It doesn't really matter if they show all the battles at once or only show one, it would be more demanding on the viewer either way. You can't argue against this by stating that some people on this site watched two fpvods at the same time and liked it, the people that come to this site are not really representative of the total potential playerbase. He's saying that the game will be more confusing to those people who don't play/watch a lot of SC2. The more casual players/viewers will be a large part of the potential audience and if you alienate them the game will fail to get sponsors after a while because the audience will be too small to make money from broadcasting the games. On January 24 2010 02:12 beetlelisk wrote:
Be honest with yourself -_- the biggest problem here is some people can't imagine something they don't see in BW or even more - they don't really care even after they played SC2 like CharlieMurphy in DT viability thread.
Show that you care, show that you try to imagine how changes affect SC2 comparing it to BW AND THEN try to speak for everyone. So because you don't like the reality he is describing he should use his imagination? You 'fixing' his post and suggesting it is a lack of skill and playing Terran that prevents him from agreeing with you is hilarious when he quoted IdrA saying the same thing. IdrA plays Terran for CJ, don't you think he would know a thing or two about attacking multiple spots as TvZ bionic is all about that lategame? This thread is basically another MBS debate. Most of the players that achieved something in BW (and had chance to play SC2) agree that macro handicaps will make the game easier. Now add new pathing AND ~255 not 12 units that you can select at once and suddenly you get HUGE amount of time to do things freed. I don't understand why you need to imagine action happening in more than 1 place as something that always has to sacrifice power of your army and happen in exactly the same time at all spots. Saying that it won't happen for example in case of muta harassment because zerg most of the time make 11 mutas [edit - like randombum wrote on page 18] is ridiculous to me. OF COURSE NO ONE IS GOING TO BLATANTLY SACRIFICE ANYTHING FOR SUCH A SMALL GAIN. Don't you remember games where zerg was microing 2 groups of mutas in different spots and killing terran with them? Action happening in multiple spots doesn't have to mean battles, it can as well mean better scouting. You described micro and unit control the way it happens in BW - it's limited to 12 units at once and since the most important thing to keep doing is macro it's really hard to split your force and still use in efficent way - this is what I meant by lack of imagination. Splitting your force is mostly limited to Storm drops, recalls, sacrificing cheap units like lings or vultures to damage expos and destroy peons. Now notice a lot of changes done to units in SC2 - warp in mechanic, Stalkers and blink, Colossi ignoring cliffs, Reapers, increased need fro Dropships because only they can heal and among many more other things Banshees having (in last builds) almost 3 times as strong attack as Wraiths have - 2 Banshees can be equivalent to 5 mutas! In short there is going to be so many new ways to use your units that, for me, saying you are limited to one spot at a time (after hundreds of threads bashing mbs) shows at least limited imagination. If someone acts like he's the shit on top of that, asking himself like a Korean progamer and answering to himself it simply pisses me off. edit: I wrote about average spectator getting confused in my previous post. It doesn't matter that you can now control more than 12 units at once for micro in more than one spot, you're ignoring why it is still physically hard to do it even with MBS+AM+UUS, hint: you can only be in one spot at once and units die in seconds. It already happens in BW, but only when it is worth it because splitting your force is a huge risk. I also explained why you can combine 1 macro and 1 micro task more easily than two micro tasks, I never said that microing in multiple spots is not feasible because of macro, I said it isn't feasible because microing in multiple spots at the same time is really hard even if that's all you have to do.
Answered in my last posts.
None of the units you named change any of that, you're still investing money/time in harass that could have been spent on your main army. You're still investing in a tech that has to pay for itself
How the fuck do you know that? About examples I gave and you disregarded as not changing anything:
I know there's no beta yet where big changes are supposed to happen.
Thinking about possibilities alone makes me excited, I like to consider more things while you keep thinking only about things you can see in BW.
I get the impression that you don't understand BW much when you don't even mention the armysplitting that occurs in all the Terran matchups, I even mentioned TvZ where army splitting is really viable(necessary even) because mnm are so ridiculously cost-efficient and Zerg tends to expand like wildfire.
I focused on mnm in TvZ earlier, including a quote from Ret's blog.
Armysplitting that occurs in TvP is limited to fastest and one of the cheapest units in the game.
It occurs because their numbers can be replenished easily.
Armysplitting that occurs in TvT... lol. It's so hard to battle Siege Tanks that Terrans make fleets of Dropships to drop units directly on top of opponent's units.
Add few Turrets and yeah sure you can split in TvT, except when are those units going to be moved again to another spot?
You've never seen anything wrong in calling Terran a turtle race?
I don't remember any games were Zerg was using muta micro in two locations, I do remember Jaedong(vs Flash gom final Blue Storm) and Savior(vs Nada on Neo Medusa) microing two groups on the same mineral line, how about a link to the VOD? Attackmoving in one spot and dancing in the other doesn't count... Note that in the games I mentioned Zerg was already winning with no vessels in sight so he might as well show off a little.
Again - why does action in multiple locations have to mean perfect micro, pulled off in all spots in exactly the same time on top of that?
I brought games with 2 groups of mutas as something opposite to 11 of them being a number set in stone forever. Maybe those games were a show off, I don't even care.
What randombum said actually completely destroys your reasoning, he's saying that splitting your army/harass is only viable if making the extra units is actually worth it. Which just happened to be exactly what I'm saying. You'll only see more than 11 mutas vs bio if it's something like crazyZerg or Zerg somehow manages to delay/snipe vessels enough.
What reasoning are you talking about? Numbers of mutas you can see in BW aren't random - 7 is the minimum to 1 hit kill SCVs and 11 is all you can have in 1 group with an Overlord or other unit to make mutas clump.
At 1st I read what he wrote as coming from another guy who randomly tries to imagine something he doesn't really see in BW as conveniently impractical or impossible - splitting mutas into groups of 3 - 4 doesn't make any sense anywhere, anytime.
I don't know how will SC2 ZvT turn out but I am sure assuming that all strategies (including exact numbers of units) will be the same is wrong. There are no vessels and there is no irradiate spell btw.
We have to see how deadly hunter seeker missile turns out to be.
|
On February 04 2010 07:22 Bebop Berserker wrote:
HOnestly I have no problem with MBS but automining is kind of gay... i mean how hard is it to keep 2 CC's hotkeyed when you have mbs... 1a 2a 3a 4tttvvvvv 5s 6s wil be 80% of the macro micro. I am curious to see if micro improves, but it will amke sc2 SO frustrating for new players because good player will simply multitask them to death.
Cept the AAM will keep them with similarly skilled players.
|
+ Show Spoiler +Just found out that the cl looking like a d is fixed! Not just a coincidence. + Show Spoiler +
Page source:
Every <span style="letter-spacing:-0.5px">cl</span>ick counts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
