EPTTen hours a day is pretty excessive. Most people don't do that.
Every click counts (or should it?) - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Severedevil
United States4830 Posts
Ten hours a day is pretty excessive. Most people don't do that. | ||
|
phyvo
United States5635 Posts
On December 23 2009 13:39 ManiacTheZealot wrote: I experienced it first hand its not a baseless claim. If you don't want to believe me thats your choice. I know its a scary thought I can understand why you don't wanna believe me but its real it happens. Anecdote, even your own personal anecdote, is not proof. If it were then plane travel wouldn't be as safe as it is relative to cars. I mean, my dad has been a programmer for years and years, since computers were becoming big and he and never had that problem. Only a bit of arthritis, actually. What then can we conclude about hand problems? They're more complicated than your fear mongering attitude lets on. Also, as the Severe says improper hand posture and ergonomically bad equipment will indeed quickly destroy your hands if you let them. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
To give an example of what I mean and to address the ongoing disagreement... The relevant interactive aspects of "macro" are those including player decisions. The chief two that come to mind are the construction of your army and the pacing of economics, aka army composition and worker pumping. I was trying to acknowledge that "macro" is effectively interactive, but the task involves solitaire tasks. The interface we have in sc1 means in order to choose what army you are building, you must click all your gateways in succession every N seconds and hit a hotkey for a given unit. I understand that's the way it is, and some people are faster than others, and can keep multitask concentration better during macro. But the relevant part is choosing what units you build, if any, each round of production capacity throughout time. I think the interactive part is the important part, so if you could think it and it was so, that would be great. If you could think to yourself, "keep building workers until 30 per base on minerals, auto mine", I am fully in favour of that. Obviously that's impossible, so I want instead for the clicking and typing we do to be minimal, and to correspond to the task at hand as much as possible. On a side note, I find comparisons to "natural sports" like soccer or basketball to be disingenuous, similar to serious comparisons to chess. Dribbling in basketball relates directly to the game mechanisms. If dribbling were removed, you're not just hypothetically emphasizing strategy at the cost of "macro" (as the analogy runs), you're fundamentally changing the game into ultimate frisbee-something--players now lack a huge chunk of the opportunity to steal the ball. So the comparison doesn't analogize in a useful way, ya know? In fact, the dexterity task of dribbling is intimately related to a game mechanism, in that your ability to dribble allows you to advance on the court, and you are liable to have the ball stolen. Your ability to shoot with good form is directly linked to scoring points without getting blocked. Training to leverage these skills into winning makes sense because they are inherently linked to how basketball works--in physical space. In starcraft, dexterity skills are artificially defined by the interface chosen and not particularly resonant with the interactive game elements they let you perform. If anyone is still reading, thanks, and do you see what I'm saying? (TPS, a11) I see your guys' perspective and part of my heart is there, with much less fervor and ownership. Yes, if you take RTS in the direction I want it to go, you are losing some things, but I think you gain back at least much in essentially congruent areas. Lockdown feats might not impress because of smartcast, but the addition of AI and interface features will just move the bar for impressive control feats for pros to perform and everyone else to aspire to. This discussion involves a subjective element I respect. I can see a proxy argument about soccer, something near and dear to my heart, involving legalizing the use of hands. I find that idea heretical of course. I don't think you gain significant profit by that "interface" change in the interest of accessibility. But in computer games I do think you gain significant profit in game richness by interface "improvement". I think this point can be argued but it becomes tedious in the face of saying it is based largely on subjective disagreement. Incidentally, I think first person shooters with aimbots could be perfectly interesting, deep, and fun. And I'm a hardcore halo fan, so... ::braces for flaming::. edit: nice, veir (below) | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10595 Posts
Some people here have strange arguments: RTS defining fact is that they need (high) dexterity because it's real time? That’s the effect of *old* interfaces, insufficent input devices and other restrictions, not a direct effect of it being an RTS. RTS defining fact is that they are real time, which means that you don't get *thinking* breaks, how much you get done is not only defined by your ressources but also by your "speed". Now, the interface of Starcraft is so bad, that this "speed" is a result, to the greater extend at least, of your dexterity and not your decision making/thinking (depending on the exact task naturally)... This is not bad! But it also doesn't mean that it has to be like that for all RTS games or that it should be a defining trait of all RTS games or that we can be sure that it is a good thing. The problem here is, that SC/BW is better than any other RTS in nearly any other aspect and therefore does not compare well to games with *easyer/more modern/better* interfaces. RTS are about "decisions (per minute)", not about about "actions or clicks (per minute)". You can't really raise the amount of decisions or actions someone makes whiteout also raising the required actions or decisions, but it's entirely up to the game design how many actions a *standard* decision needs. It's RTS and therefore requireds (HIGH) dexterity = Wrong. | ||
|
Creationism
China505 Posts
On December 23 2009 17:37 Velr wrote: I love Starcraft, but: Some people here have strange arguments: RTS defining fact is that they need (high) dexterity because it's real time? That’s the effect of *old* interfaces, insufficent input devices and other restrictions, not a direct effect of it being an RTS. RTS defining fact is that they are real time, which means that you don't get *thinking* breaks, how much you get done is not only defined by your ressources but also by your "speed". Now, the interface of Starcraft is so bad, that this "speed" is a result, to the greater extend at least, of your dexterity and not your decision making/thinking (depending on the exact task naturally)... This is not bad! But it also doesn't mean that it has to be like that for all RTS games or that it should be a defining trait of all RTS games or that we can be sure that it is a good thing. The problem here is, that SC/BW is better than any other RTS in nearly any other aspect and therefore does not compare well to games with *easyer/more modern/better* interfaces. RTS are about "decisions (per minute)", not about about "actions or clicks (per minute)". You can't really raise the amount of decisions or actions someone makes whiteout also raising the required actions or decisions, but it's entirely up to the game design how many actions a *standard* decision needs. It's RTS and therefore requireds (HIGH) dexterity = Wrong. No, but the difference is the decisions in an RTS become organized and grouped as the player and game develops. Simple decisions over a minute like, making a zealot, making a dragoon, become clumped into a decision such as "bulldog". The actual decision the advanced player made during this time was really one decision, but the amount of actions and mastery required is different. Reactionary decisions that are suppose to seem fast, such as a reaction to a marine rush of sort, are also impacted by this grouped decisions phenomenon. Instead of simply reacting to this in only one simple way, which is the effect on the decision to make zlots and dragoons, it also adds to the decisions encompassed in the "bulldog" decision, with effects like delay of timing, size of army, and economy. The very key point in competitive starcraft was that each part of the greater decision "bulldog" required mastery and even such a simple strategy takes a certain amount skill and knowledge of the game to master. Each refining in small decision making and control eventually contributes to a greater success rate of the "bulldog". Effects to the extremes can be seen in the difference when a D player executes this and when an A player executes this. Now to the point of simplifying the actions in making a simple decision, such as "make 5 zealots", what happens is you take away the full phenomenon of the grouped decisions effect, which in my opinion makes starcraft starcraft. The contributions of refining of each small action to the great decision becomes less, and the simple strategy becomes simpler. To put it to an extreme, eventually you get rock/paper/scissor: the basic game in which strategies need no refining through the smaller steps. To the extent of the interface, it requires that the definition of interface be separated into the actual INTERFACE, as in what you see, and the CONTROL MECHANICS. Of the two I believe you are speaking about CONTROL MECHANICS, specifically MBS, AUTOMINE, other good(bad) stuff like that. As I said, it takes away fromt he full phenomenon of the grouped decisions process, which could only take away from the full potential of the game. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On December 23 2009 18:06 Creationism wrote: To the extent of the interface, it requires that the definition of interface be separated into the actual INTERFACE, as in what you see, and the CONTROL MECHANICS. Of the two I believe you are speaking about CONTROL MECHANICS, specifically MBS, AUTOMINE, other good(bad) stuff like that. As I said, it takes away fromt he full phenomenon of the grouped decisions process, which could only take away from the full potential of the game. I understand the desire for that distinction, but what I'm saying doesn't include that; I mean both. I separate the gamespace and the abstracted actions possible within it, and our corporeal modes of enacting them. So however this pile of carbon builds 5 zealots, that is interfacing. I appreciate that a lot of RTS strategy actually happens outside the game over the course of its life. The "supercomputer" of millions of people playing it and partially solving it. It's just an assumption though that the destination is a rock paper scissors metagame. It's also an assumption, btw, that starcraft is solvable. It's also an assumption that starcraft is balanced, or balanceable via things like mineral, gas, and time costs. By assumption I mean unproven, whereas chess is proven to be solveable, and has been partially solved. (For instance, it can be demonstrated that if white and black play optimally, black can force a draw.) I think games are better when outside preparation to learn good strategies is balanced by having to think on the fly, be that in real time or turn based. I think starcraft as it stands would be dynamic enough with "ubercontrol" to deliver interesting in-game scenarios. I think tweaking it would elevate its dynamics. The streamlined-control tack of sc2 nudges the game in the direction of more involved small groups fighting (which is not nearly as bland-resultant, I feel, as some people have argued) and the two dimensional arm-wrestle between players of aggression and economic domination. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5411 Posts
On December 23 2009 17:37 Velr wrote: I love Starcraft, but: Some people here have strange arguments: RTS defining fact is that they need (high) dexterity because it's real time? That’s the effect of *old* interfaces, insufficent input devices and other restrictions, not a direct effect of it being an RTS. RTS defining fact is that they are real time, which means that you don't get *thinking* breaks, how much you get done is not only defined by your ressources but also by your "speed". Now, the interface of Starcraft is so bad, that this "speed" is a result, to the greater extend at least, of your dexterity and not your decision making/thinking (depending on the exact task naturally)... This is not bad! But it also doesn't mean that it has to be like that for all RTS games or that it should be a defining trait of all RTS games or that we can be sure that it is a good thing. The problem here is, that SC/BW is better than any other RTS in nearly any other aspect and therefore does not compare well to games with *easyer/more modern/better* interfaces. RTS are about "decisions (per minute)", not about about "actions or clicks (per minute)". You can't really raise the amount of decisions or actions someone makes whiteout also raising the required actions or decisions, but it's entirely up to the game design how many actions a *standard* decision needs. It's RTS and therefore requireds (HIGH) dexterity = Wrong. The only person talking about RTS in general was sirlin and his zombies. Everyone else was talking about StarCraft specifically and what makes it such a good game. And if you followed the MBS discussions or any serious macro threads you'd realize that the consensus was that macro should require both tons of decision making and dexterity, so that you have to adapt a certain playstyle and acquire a rhythm. | ||
|
Creationism
China505 Posts
On December 23 2009 18:54 EatThePath wrote: I understand the desire for that distinction, but what I'm saying doesn't include that; I mean both. I separate the gamespace and the abstracted actions possible within it, and our corporeal modes of enacting them. So however this pile of carbon builds 5 zealots, that is interfacing. I appreciate that a lot of RTS strategy actually happens outside the game over the course of its life. The "supercomputer" of millions of people playing it and partially solving it. It's just an assumption though that the destination is a rock paper scissors metagame. It's also an assumption, btw, that starcraft is solvable. It's also an assumption that starcraft is balanced, or balanceable via things like mineral, gas, and time costs. By assumption I mean unproven, whereas chess is proven to be solveable, and has been partially solved. (For instance, it can be demonstrated that if white and black play optimally, black can force a draw.) I think games are better when outside preparation to learn good strategies is balanced by having to think on the fly, be that in real time or turn based. I think starcraft as it stands would be dynamic enough with "ubercontrol" to deliver interesting in-game scenarios. I think tweaking it would elevate its dynamics. The streamlined-control tack of sc2 nudges the game in the direction of more involved small groups fighting (which is not nearly as bland-resultant, I feel, as some people have argued) and the two dimensional arm-wrestle between players of aggression and economic domination. The idea that Starcraft is "solvable" is only existant in theory-crafting, which is VERY different from the actual experience of the game. Rather than arguing based on assumption and future based points, such as SC2 being completely balanced and the transparency and the effectiveness of counter-strategies/units (which is something totally unpredictable), I am analyzing the flow dynamic of the game from the decision making effect and reaction effect of Starcraft now and what we have seen of SC2. Whether or not the game will be retard-friendly like a dull edged scissor and get many buyers is not the point here, but rather the dynamics of the game, which you mention in your post. The dynamics of the game stem from the finesse in the contributions of each refined technique to the ultimate macro/mindgame/economic/game-wide decision. The dynamic can be seen in several different view, but I'm only going to touch on a few that comes to mind: Holistic/Game Knowledge dynamic, Reactionary dynamic, and Stylistic dynamic. The contributions of pure knowledge and instinct about the game and how it factors into the outcome is the fabric of EVERY game, and therefore hard to specify in SC because it is so general. Some games excel at this point, others not so much. But for the other two, simplied (or as some call it, "better", "new", "modern") interface/mechanics does actually take away from the depth of the game. The information about from a scout or the response to an attack should have an ripple effect on the flow of your game, even if the mental note is something as simple as, "I have to move out a minute earlier". The effect should be seen in the micro AND macro techniques of the game and player, reflecting the changes. By a simplifying change in SC2, it takes away from the process and much of the effect range. (I don't think I need to argue how it simplifies both macro and micro, so I'll jus skip it) In a stylistic point, it takes away the dynamic from the range of players. I believe Nony phrased this in an adequate way in an interview a while back with Tasteless and Artosis. The mastery in techniques in microing and macroing define a player towards the strategy they will use. A player maybe less skilled in micro, and therefore cuts workers in the above scenario to achieve victory-assured amount of units. A player less skilled in macro will rely on his techniques in micro to break through and gain advantage that makes up for his lack. Not only this, but also in the units and strategies that evolve from the game. Now whether simplifying the game is a good thing or a bad thing can be argued from many points and have on TL, but I really don't think that there could be any argument that the changes that were heavily protested takes away from the dynamics of the game. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10595 Posts
You can design RTS to have a high dexterity demand, be it because you want it or not, back in the days it was forced because of various limitations (computer speed, input devices...), many of those limitations are gone now (CPU strenght), many are still here (input devices), some are still in because they are/seem to be fun. Coming to Starcraft: I personally think that the decision to build X Zealots and X Dragoons is more important than being able to click all the gates as fast as possible. I don't like the really *mindless* clicks. Important is the knowledge to not miss the *beat* when your units finish and you should/could produce new ones. Btw: I actually really enjoy the feeling of clicking X buildings macroing my heart out ^^. I still don't think it is a really good part of the game and I for sure don't think it's what makes Starcraft so great. The first *MBS* implementation would have been horrible, I like how it is now. I like unlimited unit selection. Moving an army from A to B = easyer/less tedious. Just dragging your full army at once and send them to battle = easyer, BUT it should never be better than splitting up your army and forcing surrounds/flanks on your enemy. You often see Progamers still not being able to send big armies into battle in a *good* way (zergling conga...)... It's simply more important and easyer/less demanding(!) to actually send all your units into battle. Now you could let every unit run off at once and split them on the way like you want them instead of repeating the "A-Click" for X(X) times and being finished with that when the first units are allready in battle or accidentally forgetting to send in some stray units. On a lower to mid/high skilled level this will most probably make for *better* games. And the control in the actual battle will probably become more important or at least moves more into the focus. I doubt this will make the skill ceiling to low. @Creationism I don't like that you chose the Bulldog as an example. This strategy is mechanically pretty/very easy. Yes, it's another world when a D players does it compared to an A player. But even a simple 2 gate, 6 pool or whatever rush is something completely different when it's coming from an A, C+ or D player. Why? Because of "everything".. Most reasons have nothing to do with MBS or Unit-Selection. The A player is most likely just more spot on with his timing at every single stage and that’s not because of the APM diffrence. I'm pretty sure even on a 4 Pool the A player would have his Zerglings a few seconds faster in your base than a D player would. Just fight 12 Probes controlled by an A player with 4 Zerglings and do the same against a D player... Chances are high that simple "Attack move" and very little engaging/disengaging will kill the D player while the same against the A player will let you look very retarded. Or think about Corsair/Reaver... You are only handling 2 Groups of Units.. Corsairs and Shuttle/Reavers. Neither has more than 12 units in it (most likely). Macroing is also not that big of a part in that strategy initially). But still, it is frigging hard to pull off *right*, at least if your opponent is decent and wouldn't get screwed by a reaver drop anyway  .There are miriads of other things that come into play... Clicking on your production buildings in this stage of the game is not that big of a deal (not physically), knowledge and micro are, both wouldn't become much easyer with MBS or army selection because the strategy is "small scale". After the transition into lategame and the transition itself are entirely different beasts. Most half-decent players are physically totally capable of doing these build orders while not screwing up their macro. There are tons of small things that make the diffrence, the only thing that really would play in is probably automining (which I don't like, you should have to think of sending your workers to your minerals). Btw: I'm no big fan of Sirlin, but people are way to buthurt when he says something you guys disagree, or critisizes someting... If he wouldn't take Stracraft as an example many of you would would probably complain that he took some shitty RTS as example and not the best there is. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
 | ||
|
JohannesH
Finland1364 Posts
On December 23 2009 20:22 Velr wrote: RTS = needs high dexterity. Is just wrong. It doesn't matter about what RTS you think. Show me an RTS where dexterity doesnt give you a significant advantage, when players are very good at said game and about evenly matched in other respects. A game that you would be just as confident playing with a touchpad as with a mouse for example? I dont think you can make an RTS that isnt also partly decided by mouse precision, at least if its not really simple and with extremely low unit counts. You cant change that by just making the UI better. Also you dont need to be greatly dextrous to have fast apm, not in SC at least. For good apm you just need to know whats going on, pressing 0sz9sz or whatever once in awhile doesnt require too much handspeed its more about being aware that you gotta do it. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On December 23 2009 19:24 Creationism wrote: The idea that Starcraft is "solvable" is only existant in theory-crafting, which is VERY different from the actual experience of the game. Rather than arguing based on assumption and future based points, such as SC2 being completely balanced and the transparency and the effectiveness of counter-strategies/units (which is something totally unpredictable), I am analyzing the flow dynamic of the game from the decision making effect and reaction effect of Starcraft now and what we have seen of SC2. Whether or not the game will be retard-friendly like a dull edged scissor and get many buyers is not the point here, but rather the dynamics of the game, which you mention in your post. The dynamics of the game stem from the finesse in the contributions of each refined technique to the ultimate macro/mindgame/economic/game-wide decision. The dynamic can be seen in several different view, but I'm only going to touch on a few that comes to mind: Holistic/Game Knowledge dynamic, Reactionary dynamic, and Stylistic dynamic. The contributions of pure knowledge and instinct about the game and how it factors into the outcome is the fabric of EVERY game, and therefore hard to specify in SC because it is so general. Some games excel at this point, others not so much. But for the other two, simplied (or as some call it, "better", "new", "modern") interface/mechanics does actually take away from the depth of the game. The information about from a scout or the response to an attack should have an ripple effect on the flow of your game, even if the mental note is something as simple as, "I have to move out a minute earlier". The effect should be seen in the micro AND macro techniques of the game and player, reflecting the changes. By a simplifying change in SC2, it takes away from the process and much of the effect range. (I don't think I need to argue how it simplifies both macro and micro, so I'll jus skip it) In a stylistic point, it takes away the dynamic from the range of players. I believe Nony phrased this in an adequate way in an interview a while back with Tasteless and Artosis. The mastery in techniques in microing and macroing define a player towards the strategy they will use. A player maybe less skilled in micro, and therefore cuts workers in the above scenario to achieve victory-assured amount of units. A player less skilled in macro will rely on his techniques in micro to break through and gain advantage that makes up for his lack. Not only this, but also in the units and strategies that evolve from the game. Now whether simplifying the game is a good thing or a bad thing can be argued from many points and have on TL, but I really don't think that there could be any argument that the changes that were heavily protested takes away from the dynamics of the game. I don't completely agree with what Sirlin said but there is some merit in his assertion that people don't like advances in the interface because they've gotten used to Starcraft's interface's limitations. The hardcore e-sports, TL crowd have gotten so used to it that they view Starcraft's number of clicks balance as sacrosanct. People complain about how things such as MBS and automining take away from the skill and dynamics of Starcraft. It seems that the view around some parts here is that the interface technology when Starcraft was released contains the perfect balance of micro and macro and number of clicks. Any new advances in technology would take away from the dynamics of the game. What is forgotten is that at the time Starcraft was released, certain interface features like rally points and even selecting 12 units at a time where relatively new. If removing automation would truly make the game better, there is no reason that Starcraft's interface should be the baseline. Under that argument you present, removing things such as rally points, F keys, group saving and hotkeys would make Starcraft even more dynamic by adding clicks to the game. This is almost never argued, however and for good reason. People have a tendency to become slaves to habit and view existing automation as essential while considering new automation as removing from the richness of the game. | ||
|
ManiacTheZealot
United States490 Posts
"How does RSI happen? According to our current level of knowledge, joints, sinews and muscles can be so badly damaged by fast, short and daily repetitive movements that these are insufficiently regenerated at night or when not at work. When this strain continues for several years (experts talk of 5 years), this "minor" damage such as muscle tissue tears lead to bouts of pain and reduced activity. Finally, the smallest movement, such as that involved in getting dressed, can become a problem. These factors make it worse: Mental reasons: Working at a computer screen often goes together with a increased workload. As well as the fast movements with mouse and keyboard, highly concentrated thought is needed. Usually a lot of information must be processed in a short time. But high-flying thinking combined with repetitive movement is against "human nature", particularly when the information is new. No other organ is so closely connected to the brain as the hand. Thinking processes cause muscle cramp, so the movement must be made against increased resistance. Narrowing of the blood vessels reduces supply to the muscles. On the other hand, even highly automated movements disturb complex thought processes. Typing on a keyboard while formulating a sentence is more exacting and takes place with a reduced supply of blood. Susceptibility to RSI increases under such conditions. Stress: Work is often carried out under immense time and deadline pressure. Not infrequently, the fear that the task has gotten out of hand plays a role. Anyone under stress cramps up. This cramp spreads out to the neck, shoulders and arm muscles and leads to a 'cramped' attitude to work. Anyone who is a slave to his work will take less care of ergonomic behavior such as correct positioning and operation of devices used, taking breaks, etc. This also increases the risk of RSI. Working position: A rigid and uncomfortable working position and movement reduces the blood supply to the muscles and can cause minor damage to the muscles and tendons. For example, if you type with two fingers, you concentrate the entire load on these two fingers instead of spreading it across ten fingers as is possible with the ten-finger typing system. Movement patterns that are not ergonomic include bent or twisted wrists. This narrows the blood vessels and tears tendons and nerves. Injuries and inflammations often result. The right-angled slab keyboard in common use today almost forces an incorrect position and cramps in the shoulders and neck as well as bent wrists. Working on a laptop also forces a somewhat unhelathy positioning and movement. It's the speed that does it: Some specialists still believe that typing on an electronic keyboard is less damaging to health than typing on a mechanical typewriter since strokes need less force. This has proven to be wrong. Especially, work at a computer screen has shown that the force required for a movement is less of a problem - it is the high movement frequency that is a principal reason for RSI complaints. The minimization of the force needed to operate an electronic keyboard has enormously increased typing speed, and there is no longer a pause to execute a carriage return or insert a new sheet. "Personality" risk: Too much orientation towards performance and an excess of ambition often characterize RSI sufferers. Often, they don't pay enough attention to the signals emanating from their own bodies and therefore ignore the first signs of illness. Operating the mouse: The finger bends, exerts force and either relaxes again or remains in a rigid position lying on the mouse. This operation is carried out innumerable times a day by an operator at a screen to direct the computer mouse. Mouse clicks repeated thousands of times can also lead to the RSI syndrome. Although compared to a keyboard, these repeated one-movement strains are small, this advantage is lost through operating the mouse with too few fingers. Working with this input device is also often connected with higher intellectual demands, such as registering information." Pain, burning or tingling sensations in your hands/arms is your body telling you to stop. Listen. | ||
|
NatsuTerran
United States364 Posts
These soft counters are what developers should emphasize because they add true skill to the game (skill in the sense you are actually interacting with your controller/keyboard). But instead every game developer is just shrouding us in more rock paper scissors. Starcraft is the only game on the planet that can be compared to a physical sport. I can't imagine anyone getting impressed over somebody being good at Tekken or Red Alert 3 or what have you. Games these days encourage accessablity over learning curve. No you cannot have both. Games are either deep or accessable for beginners. And the only game I know of that manages to be deep without a physical element is Go/Chess. Good luck recreating that in an RPS styled video game, lol. Personally, I haven't been playing much of any game lately other than some Call of Duty. I feel if Sirlin were to get his hands on that he would cut out aiming to ensure whoever has the right gun at the right time wins. Instead of gaming, I've started up Mixed Martial Arts. Just last night I got punched in the nose and blood poured out like a facet. It doesn't bother me because I know once I work my ass off and get to a higher level it will be something to be proud of all the time and work I have put in. I sure as hell can't see that happening with something as skill-less as Street Fighter ( the redux that Sirlin made which makes it so that anyone can do any move). My wish is for Sirlin to train in some BJJ. I can't think of anything with a higher learning curve than that, and it might wake him up and get his head out of his ass. | ||
|
JohannesH
Finland1364 Posts
On December 24 2009 05:17 NatsuTerran wrote:Games these days encourage accessablity over learning curve. No you cannot have both. Why not? I would suggest you try making a fortune in poker. | ||
|
NatsuTerran
United States364 Posts
| ||
|
armed_
Canada443 Posts
On December 24 2009 05:17 NatsuTerran wrote: I can't imagine anyone getting impressed over somebody being good at Tekken... On December 24 2009 05:17 NatsuTerran wrote: I sure as hell can't see that happening with something as skill-less as Street Fighter ( the redux that Sirlin made which makes it so that anyone can do any move). I would bet everything I own that you have played neither of these games at a competitive level, have no understanding of the changes Sirlin made in HDR, and in general just don't know what you're talking about. ;< | ||
|
NatsuTerran
United States364 Posts
Edit: forgot to add SSBM | ||
|
theSAiNT
United States726 Posts
1) Manual Dexterity This refers to the ability to execute difficult procedures quickly. Rhythm based games (eg DDR or Guitar Hero) are completely based on testing this skill. It is also a component in a lot of beat-em-ups where doing a 10-hit combo requires complicated input and split second timing. It would also include the high APMs progamers reach to manage micro and macro simultaneously. 2) Strategic Decision Making This refers to the ability to analyze and situation and react accordingly. Turn based games differentiate by this element and have no test of manual dexterity at all. In chess, moving the pieces is trivially easy but where you choose to place them makes you either a grand master or an amateur. Sirlin's argument is actually a bit more nuanced than just 'let's make the game easier for everybody by reducing the requirement of manual dexterity'. Although many people discount his knowledge of Starcraft, he is nevertheless a top competitive gamer and is approaching this from that perspective. What he is saying is: in high level competition, beat-em-ups differentiate players LESS by Manual Dexterity and MORE by Strategic Decision Making. ALL high level players can already execute 10 hit combos and have already mastered split second timing. So the game differentiates between the players with superior Strategic Decision Making. The complicated mechanics play almost no part in deciding who wins or loses. Therefore, simplifying the mechanics does not affect the game as a competitive environment. A side effect is that there is a shallower learning curve. However, the essence of the game is preserved. It just makes the REAL game more accessible. A silly analogy. Imagine a game called 'Guitar Hero Chess' which has the same rules of chess but every time you want to make a move, you have to complete a level of Guitar Hero on high difficulty or forfeit your turn. The best players of 'Guitar Hero Chess' will ALL be able to complete the Guitar Hero section. What determines who wins or loses is how good they are at normal chess. Sirlin would argue that if we remove Guitar Hero from the game, it nevertheless preserves the ability of the game to differentiate 'skill' Finally, he's arguing that this also applies to Starcraft. The old UI imposes a high requirement of Manual Dexterity but at the top level, they have already mastered it. Winners and losers are decided almost completely by Strategic Decision Making. Updating the UI does reduce the game's ability to judge 'skill'. Of course, he does not propose to turn Starcraft into a turn based game (he doesn't for Street Fighter either). There will always be room for Manual Dexterity and the 2 are often substitutes (eg if you made a poor decision and made too few units to defend a push, you might be able to get away with it with superior micro). Nevertheless, I support MBS and removing the requirement for artificial clicks because I believe SC2 will have enough interesting tests of Manual Dexterity and sufficient depth in Strategic Decision Making. | ||
|
NatsuTerran
United States364 Posts
pre redux the players test their muscle memory and decision making against each other. The player who makes the least/least important manual mistakes wins. post redux the players attempt to outyomi each other. Now I haven't played SF, but the first game sounds much more attractive to me. I like something I have to train at, like MMA. If a fighting game doesn't make me spend several hours a day just training some obscure fundamental like a certain combo in order to evade, I quickly lose interest. Towards the end of your writeup you mention Starcraft and this game development idea. It does NOT work the same way as it does in Fighting games because in fighters the players either can do something or cannot. But in Starcraft, you slowly build upon your performance so that player A can use his 12 unit select better than player B, who uses it better than player C, and all through the alphabet a thousand times over. It's the same way in MMA. It isn't whether you can punch or not based on pressing a button. It's how fast your punches are, how correct the form is, etc. There are varying degrees to how effective it will be. Sirlin can't get the "lightswitch" skills out of his head to accept this. The complicated mechanics play almost no part in deciding who wins or loses. Therefore, simplifying the mechanics does not affect the game as a competitive environment. At the highest level they do indeed play a part in who wins. If someone slips up on a combo then he should get punished for losing rythmn. Also, between varying skill levels they play a massive role. I'd probably hate to hear what Sirlin thinks of purely rythmn-based games like Ping Pong, another game I love. | ||
| ||
