|
AOA I think you make a valid point but to play devil's advocate I'd like to point out what I like about TW vs PC:
PC will increase the speed at which you make decisions. These macro decisions will be of the same type of a standard game of Starcraft. This is it basically just speeds up the standard macro game by increasing the rate of income, meaning it increases the speed required to play 'perfect' in the macro area of the game.
TW can do what PC does to some extent (probably not as much) by allowing the player to pump more probes. However, TW can also be used to manipulate timings in a way that PC can not. That is PC offers a linear increase in decision making speed while TW offers this as well as allowing the player to use it to create a variable increase in decision making speed.
(When I say decision making speed, I mean the number of 'extra' decisions generated by the mechanic for player consideration).
In conclusion I think, depending on the specific stats of TW, TW can do exactly what PC did and more by allowing the player the choice to manipulate timings in a more free-form way (less linear).
|
This just shows that Blizzard is really lacking in direction with this game. Now they have to re-balance everything and we have to wait another while for even beta to come out.
protip blizzard: stop trying to balance imbalance
(roach heal, stalker blink, reaper cliff jump, imba macro mechanics)
|
To clarify, PC speeds up the standard macro game. TW can be used to speed up the standard macro game (more probes), but at the same time offers the player a few new choices (at any given instant the ability can be used), meaning it broadens the standard macro game.
|
On February 14 2010 04:46 Tsagacity wrote:
You're still not understanding where the real decisions are in a build order, so I'll clarify one last time with an example.
In a protoss vs protoss match, I have a number of different choices at the start of a game.
Do I want to go dark templars?
Do I want to go 2 gate robo?
Do I want to go 3 gate goon?
Do I want to fast expand?
^Those are choices
Once I've chosen to go for a specific 3 gate goon timing, when I build my additional gateways is NO LONGER A CHOICE. It's a forced set action I have to execute in order to achieve optimum results.
Again the purpose of the macro mechanics is not to add more of whatever decision making you personally consider to be "choices". Its to promote macro playstyles. This really is the subject for a whole nother "what is choice in Starcraft" thread but for the sake of arguement choice is a function of effectiveness of each option that varies with circumstance. Its no where near as binary as you are portraying it.
On February 14 2010 04:54 Deviation wrote:
AOA I think you make a valid point but to play devil's advocate I'd like to point out what I like about TW vs PC:
I dont want to come off as strictly "anti-TW". I think there are strong and weak points about the mechanic just like their were strong and weak points about PC.
On the point of using TW to pump probes and thereby increase mineral intake yes I agree with that. But I would be very surprised if it came close to the degree of "macro acceleration" that PC did. Im waiting for the numbers to get a better idea of what were talking about.
|
On February 14 2010 04:59 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2010 04:46 Tsagacity wrote:
You're still not understanding where the real decisions are in a build order, so I'll clarify one last time with an example.
In a protoss vs protoss match, I have a number of different choices at the start of a game.
Do I want to go dark templars?
Do I want to go 2 gate robo?
Do I want to go 3 gate goon?
Do I want to fast expand?
^Those are choices
Once I've chosen to go for a specific 3 gate goon timing, when I build my additional gateways is NO LONGER A CHOICE. It's a forced set action I have to execute in order to achieve optimum results. Again the purpose of the macro mechanics is not to add more of whatever decision making you personally consider to be "choices". Its to promote macro playstyles. This really is the subject for a whole nother "what is choice in Starcraft" thread but for the sake of arguement choice is a function of effectiveness of each option that varies with circumstance. Its no where near as binary as you are portraying it. Never did I argue anything about TW achieving whatever Blizzard's aim is. My point is that there's no additional choice with proton charge, and there is the potential for additional choice with TW.
You never did link the Browder interview by the way, you just said you would.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On a cursory scan I don't see any macro mechanic arguments supporting what the proton charge does. Can you please quote specifically?
It's not my job to find your argument supports  You're supposed to present them to me.
And of course I've seen it. I've also seen 20 other interviews. "Dustin Browder interview" doesn't mean a thing to me.
|
On February 14 2010 05:09 Tsagacity wrote:On a cursory scan I don't see any macro mechanic arguments supporting what the proton charge does. Can you please quote specifically? It's not my job to find your argument supports You're supposed to present them to me. And of course I've seen it. I've also seen 20 other interviews. "Dustin Browder interview" doesn't mean a thing to me.
Out of curiosity are you trying to turn this into a arguement about the purpose of the macro mechanics? I see allot of these distractors from you like the ad hominem attack saying I didnt know what a build order was.
|
On February 14 2010 05:14 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2010 05:09 Tsagacity wrote:On a cursory scan I don't see any macro mechanic arguments supporting what the proton charge does. Can you please quote specifically? It's not my job to find your argument supports You're supposed to present them to me. And of course I've seen it. I've also seen 20 other interviews. "Dustin Browder interview" doesn't mean a thing to me. Out of curiosity are you trying to turn this into a arguement about the purpose of the macro mechanics? I see allot of these distractors from you like asking what my iccup ranking was. Let me try to sum up my argument as best as I can:
PC on it's own is an attention/action sink. You always want to keep it up at all times, and the excess minerals would only lead to more of the same redundant macro actions you make normally.
PC *could* conceivably contribute to a micro vs macro playstyle, but only as a result of the attention sink created.
I think the Browder part you were talking about was about micro vs macro players, but I only scanned it so I would still like you to quote the part you were talking about. Micro vs macro players are determined by where they put more of their attention.
|
On February 14 2010 05:21 Tsagacity wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2010 05:14 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 14 2010 05:09 Tsagacity wrote:On a cursory scan I don't see any macro mechanic arguments supporting what the proton charge does. Can you please quote specifically? It's not my job to find your argument supports You're supposed to present them to me. And of course I've seen it. I've also seen 20 other interviews. "Dustin Browder interview" doesn't mean a thing to me. Out of curiosity are you trying to turn this into a arguement about the purpose of the macro mechanics? I see allot of these distractors from you like asking what my iccup ranking was. Micro vs macro players are determined by where they put more of their attention.
Good we agree on this much at least now lets answer the question, Which requires more macro action and therefore attention?
One extra action every 30 seconds plus any "macro acceleration" from pumping probes?
or
One extra action every 30 seconds plus about 20% increase in mineral actions?
|
On February 14 2010 05:24 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2010 05:21 Tsagacity wrote:On February 14 2010 05:14 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 14 2010 05:09 Tsagacity wrote:On a cursory scan I don't see any macro mechanic arguments supporting what the proton charge does. Can you please quote specifically? It's not my job to find your argument supports You're supposed to present them to me. And of course I've seen it. I've also seen 20 other interviews. "Dustin Browder interview" doesn't mean a thing to me. Out of curiosity are you trying to turn this into a arguement about the purpose of the macro mechanics? I see allot of these distractors from you like asking what my iccup ranking was. Micro vs macro players are determined by where they put more of their attention. Good we agree on this much at least now lets answer the question, Which requires more macro action and therefore attention? One extra action every 30 seconds?* or A 20% increase in the mineral intake and about 20% increase in mineral actions? *plus any "macro acceleration" from pumping probes. The first one early on, the second one through mid to late game. If your argument is that PC is effective as an attention sink then I have no qualms with you there.
Maybe I have you mistaken for someone else, but I thought in the past you were constantly trying to find ways to make the macro mechanics ALSO include choice. There's a huge following of people who criticize PC as ONLY an attention sink and nothing else.
I honestly was perfectly ok with PC because I'm an "elitist" in the mbs/apm argument. Pure APM sink is just dandy to me
TW definitely has choice. The attention sink side we don't know yet because they've essentially told us nothing about it.
|
SUPER FAST 0 build time $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ UMS MAPS HAVE THE BEST MACRO.
1. You get units as much as your actions per minute, making MACRO highly important.
2. You are maxed in under a minute with many production buildings if you know what you are doing. As units build about 100 times faster than normal, you get 100 times more MACRO.
3. You can win by rallying scouts into the enemy base, which shows that MACRO styles work perfectly, over most micro styles that wastes APM that don't even gain the advantage of a whole unit per action.
Seriously, all those iccup folks have it wrong. The UMS players are right in realizing that "fastest" maps are the ultimate evolution of starcraft, and build times is for lamers that needs time for the "micro" thingy.
|
On February 14 2010 05:35 Tsagacity wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2010 05:24 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 14 2010 05:21 Tsagacity wrote:On February 14 2010 05:14 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 14 2010 05:09 Tsagacity wrote:On a cursory scan I don't see any macro mechanic arguments supporting what the proton charge does. Can you please quote specifically? It's not my job to find your argument supports You're supposed to present them to me. And of course I've seen it. I've also seen 20 other interviews. "Dustin Browder interview" doesn't mean a thing to me. Out of curiosity are you trying to turn this into a arguement about the purpose of the macro mechanics? I see allot of these distractors from you like asking what my iccup ranking was. Micro vs macro players are determined by where they put more of their attention. Good we agree on this much at least now lets answer the question, Which requires more macro action and therefore attention? One extra action every 30 seconds?* or A 20% increase in the mineral intake and about 20% increase in mineral actions? *plus any "macro acceleration" from pumping probes. The first one early on, the second one through mid to late game. If your argument is that PC is effective as an attention sink then I have no qualms with you there. Maybe I have you mistaken for someone else, but I thought in the past you were constantly trying to find ways to make the macro mechanics ALSO include choice. There's a huge following of people who criticize PC as ONLY an attention sink and nothing else. I honestly was perfectly ok with PC because I'm an "elitist" in the mbs/apm argument. Pure APM sink is just dandy to me TW definitely has choice. The attention sink side we don't know yet because they've essentially told us nothing about it.
I am hugely "pro-choice" but there is a fine line on this whole debate. Are you talking immidiate choice when your using the ability or choices that result from using the ability.
And actually thats not even what im talking about here. Im talking about macro acceleration comparing TW and PC.
Oh and thank you SWPIGWANG for bringing flagrant exaggeration and caps lock to the debate. Really helps your arguement.
|
On February 14 2010 04:37 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2010 04:35 Chen wrote:
AOA, just wondering how exactly do you think more money=more choices? take current broodwar for example. if you give a late-game toss player more money, is there ANYTHING he can do other than build more gateways and pump more min-heavy units? (this uses the assumption that PC gave you more mins compared to gas, since you are boosting 20 ish min probes and 3 gas ones) considering where the obelisk was on the tech tree, it can't really help in tech or upgrade decisions since most of those are done. The way I'm seeing it is you either spend your money on units, or you do not, not much of a choice to me. the only real decision would be do i want 3 more zlots, or 3 more dragoons. do you think thats a better choice than do i want a faster upgrades/high-tech units/workers? Before dealing with "what is choice" metaphysical questions pretaining to late game situations lets answer the fundamental questions. Which creates more macro actions and decisions? One extra decision every 30 seconds? or A 20% increase in the mineral intake and about 20% increase in mineral decision making?
My point is that there isnt any choice because you either use PC to get more money or you dont. and after that you either spend the money on more of what you would already be doing or you dont, ie you either build more gateways/zlots or you let that money pile up. You have more money and therefore must do more repetitive actions to spend that money, but i dont see any choice a player has in how/where that money is spent, its either used or wasted.
with TW you have to balance between econ, army, and tech, while with PC you either increase your econ and army size, or you dont
|
On February 14 2010 07:00 Chen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2010 04:37 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 14 2010 04:35 Chen wrote:
AOA, just wondering how exactly do you think more money=more choices? take current broodwar for example. if you give a late-game toss player more money, is there ANYTHING he can do other than build more gateways and pump more min-heavy units? (this uses the assumption that PC gave you more mins compared to gas, since you are boosting 20 ish min probes and 3 gas ones) considering where the obelisk was on the tech tree, it can't really help in tech or upgrade decisions since most of those are done. The way I'm seeing it is you either spend your money on units, or you do not, not much of a choice to me. the only real decision would be do i want 3 more zlots, or 3 more dragoons. do you think thats a better choice than do i want a faster upgrades/high-tech units/workers? Before dealing with "what is choice" metaphysical questions pretaining to late game situations lets answer the fundamental questions. Which creates more macro actions and decisions? One extra decision every 30 seconds? or A 20% increase in the mineral intake and about 20% increase in mineral decision making? My point is that there isnt any choice because you either use PC to get more money or you dont. and after that you either spend the money on more of what you would already be doing or you dont, ie you either build more gateways/zlots or you let that money pile up.
And my point is that, even though you dont think of it that way, spending minerals contains much decision making, from what ratio of units to build, to whether to build more unit production buildings, to when to expand, to even where to place that next pylon.
Compared to all the other mineral decisions you are making at any moment the 1 decision every 30 seconds of where to target TW is actually pretty small. Thats not to say it isnt important but in terms of differentiating macro and micro playstyles the amount of mineral actions far surpass the 1 action per 30 seconds that TW contributes.
|
On February 14 2010 07:05 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2010 07:00 Chen wrote:On February 14 2010 04:37 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 14 2010 04:35 Chen wrote:
AOA, just wondering how exactly do you think more money=more choices? take current broodwar for example. if you give a late-game toss player more money, is there ANYTHING he can do other than build more gateways and pump more min-heavy units? (this uses the assumption that PC gave you more mins compared to gas, since you are boosting 20 ish min probes and 3 gas ones) considering where the obelisk was on the tech tree, it can't really help in tech or upgrade decisions since most of those are done. The way I'm seeing it is you either spend your money on units, or you do not, not much of a choice to me. the only real decision would be do i want 3 more zlots, or 3 more dragoons. do you think thats a better choice than do i want a faster upgrades/high-tech units/workers? Before dealing with "what is choice" metaphysical questions pretaining to late game situations lets answer the fundamental questions. Which creates more macro actions and decisions? One extra decision every 30 seconds? or A 20% increase in the mineral intake and about 20% increase in mineral decision making? My point is that there isnt any choice because you either use PC to get more money or you dont. and after that you either spend the money on more of what you would already be doing or you dont, ie you either build more gateways/zlots or you let that money pile up. And my point is that, even though you dont think of it that way, spending minerals contains much decision making, from what ratio of units to build, to whether to build more unit production buildings, to when to expand, to even where to place that next pylon. Compared to all the other mineral decisions you are making at any moment the 1 decision every 30 seconds of where to target TW is actually pretty small. Thats not to say it isnt important but in terms of differentiating macro and micro playstyles the amount of mineral actions far surpass the 1 action per 30 seconds that TW contributes.
alright, yes PC makes you click more times to get the full use out of it, i just think that TW offers alot more choices. I just done see what PC adds since you do the exact same thing as what you normally do, just more of it and faster. ie the pylon placement players pre-choose from practice games and unit ratios will probably stay the same
I also like TW alot more because there is a balance between tech, army size, and economy, rather than auto-boost to economy and army size as long as you have the right APM.
|
so beta release is just around the corner and they are still making such a huge edits?
|
On February 14 2010 07:23 ProoM wrote:
so beta release is just around the corner and they are still making such a huge edits? Go look at the original SC beta -_- SC2 looks finished and ready for release in comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
