|
On April 23 2010 09:57 Hold-Lurker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 09:52 Krikkitone wrote:On April 23 2010 09:48 Kralic wrote:
Umm i was mining 6 gas per trip... This makes for a significant balance change. Any confirmation? Regular vespene geysers are 4, there are high yield geysers in the map editor that give 6.
ahh that must be it  disregard my post
|
On April 23 2010 09:46 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 09:40 Appendix wrote:On April 23 2010 09:20 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 09:11 Appendix wrote:On April 23 2010 09:02 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:42 Archerofaiur wrote:On April 23 2010 08:38 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:34 Archerofaiur wrote:On April 23 2010 08:31 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:17 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
[quote]
Way to not read posts. I had said that I am fine with limiting factors in terms of UI. But when you have something that improves UI, and then to go back and actively remove it, is beyond me.
If I thought SC was a shitty game I wouldn't be on this site watching streams at 5am every night.
The health of BW's competition 10 years after release has a lot to do with the difficulty of inputting actions into the game. There has been a ton of discussion on TL.net as to why it's good for the competitive scene to have a limited UI. Honestly the best argument that can be made by people of your opinion is to just pull out of the argument and say that RTS, or the type of RTS SC:BW is, isn't your favorite kind of game. There is something uniquely good about having the most effective strategies be very difficult, essentially impossible, to perform perfectly and it ought to be a feature of all StarCraft RTS games. If you don't like it, play different kinds of games. Again MULE and Chronoboost show you can have both base management AND decision making. Completely missing the point there. This discussion is about the ease of use of the interface. Whether or not an action involves a significant decision does not change how easy the process of doing the action is. We are talking about going from thinking "I want to do this action" to the game actually doing the action. How you came to think that you want to do that action is irrelevant. No its not. Its intrinsically tied with how the player percieves the game. Dont believe me? Run a poll asking which people perfered more: Proton Charge or Chronoboost. I have no idea what you're saying here. Are you responding to just my last sentence? The context before it matters. How you came to think that you want to an action is irrelevant to how easy the process of doing the action is. The process of doing an action is prompted by a decision. It begins after a decision has been made. Whatever difficulty, or lack of difficulty, was in the process of making the decision is not relevant. First you make the decision. Then you do something as a result of making the decision. When you do things on purpose, you must first decide things. What am I going to do? Once you have decided what you are going to do, you have to do it. The discussion here is about how difficult it is to do it. Should we make it difficult on purpose? Should we make it as easy as possible? Should we not pay attention to it at all? Is it okay to make it easy and then make it more difficult? These issues are relevant to the discussion. Anything having to do with making the decision is outside of the discussion. What he is saying is "spawn larva" not a decision, it is simply dead actions. Yep, that's irrelevant. He's using this discussion as a springboard to go off on his favorite topic. It's absolutely not what was being talked about. Just cuz one part of what we're talking about is also one part of what he wants to talk about doesn't mean he has something useful to say. But he is correct in my opinion. I disagree with you that actions and decisions are two different matters. Decisions should induce actions, and because of how well I believe I can perform those actions I adjust my decisions. "I think I can defend this rush without chronoboosting my gateway, and instead use the boost on my nexus. If I do it right, I will be ahead, if not I will be behind or dead." My decisions come with a prize if I'm right and a cost if I'm wrong, and that is decided by my skill. Spawn larva offers no such considerations at no point. But I guess this is a neverending subject here, and I haven't read all the earlier discussions on it so I believe that all things already have been said. I knew this would come up eventually. I really don't give a fuck about archerofaiur's topic. He has brought it up before, I talked about it then, and that was that. He brings it up again when it's irrelevant so I simply say it's irrelevant so maybe he'll fuck off and let the discussion I'm involved in proceed naturally without him fucking it up to feed his personal crusade. Of course he doesn't think he's being irrelevant at all and just keeps up with his routine (that poll and its question is part of his act). You are correct that it's a never-ending subject, partially because archerofaiur brings it up at every opportunity he gets. Fuck it!
This kind of posting style reminds me allot of a poster we have on StarcraftLegacy named Demosquid.
And just like there its not constructive in any way.
|
On April 23 2010 09:40 Appendix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 09:20 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 09:11 Appendix wrote:On April 23 2010 09:02 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:42 Archerofaiur wrote:On April 23 2010 08:38 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:34 Archerofaiur wrote:On April 23 2010 08:31 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:17 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 23 2010 08:17 Senx wrote:
[quote]
So judging from your recent posts, I can assume you think that Starcraft Broodwar is the shittiest RTS of all time beacuse of all the mindless UI and gameplay(unit AI) -hurdles you had to overcome in order to become a really good player?
I think alot of people have a different opinion about that on this site.
Way to not read posts. I had said that I am fine with limiting factors in terms of UI. But when you have something that improves UI, and then to go back and actively remove it, is beyond me. If I thought SC was a shitty game I wouldn't be on this site watching streams at 5am every night. The health of BW's competition 10 years after release has a lot to do with the difficulty of inputting actions into the game. There has been a ton of discussion on TL.net as to why it's good for the competitive scene to have a limited UI. Honestly the best argument that can be made by people of your opinion is to just pull out of the argument and say that RTS, or the type of RTS SC:BW is, isn't your favorite kind of game. There is something uniquely good about having the most effective strategies be very difficult, essentially impossible, to perform perfectly and it ought to be a feature of all StarCraft RTS games. If you don't like it, play different kinds of games. Again MULE and Chronoboost show you can have both base management AND decision making. Completely missing the point there. This discussion is about the ease of use of the interface. Whether or not an action involves a significant decision does not change how easy the process of doing the action is. We are talking about going from thinking "I want to do this action" to the game actually doing the action. How you came to think that you want to do that action is irrelevant. No its not. Its intrinsically tied with how the player percieves the game. Dont believe me? Run a poll asking which people perfered more: Proton Charge or Chronoboost. I have no idea what you're saying here. Are you responding to just my last sentence? The context before it matters. How you came to think that you want to an action is irrelevant to how easy the process of doing the action is. The process of doing an action is prompted by a decision. It begins after a decision has been made. Whatever difficulty, or lack of difficulty, was in the process of making the decision is not relevant. First you make the decision. Then you do something as a result of making the decision. When you do things on purpose, you must first decide things. What am I going to do? Once you have decided what you are going to do, you have to do it. The discussion here is about how difficult it is to do it. Should we make it difficult on purpose? Should we make it as easy as possible? Should we not pay attention to it at all? Is it okay to make it easy and then make it more difficult? These issues are relevant to the discussion. Anything having to do with making the decision is outside of the discussion. What he is saying is "spawn larva" not a decision, it is simply dead actions. Yep, that's irrelevant. He's using this discussion as a springboard to go off on his favorite topic. It's absolutely not what was being talked about. Just cuz one part of what we're talking about is also one part of what he wants to talk about doesn't mean he has something useful to say. But he is correct in my opinion. I disagree with you that actions and decisions are two different matters. Decisions should induce actions, and because of how well I believe I can perform those actions I adjust my decisions. "I think I can defend this rush without chronoboosting my gateway, and instead use the boost on my nexus. If I do it right, I will be ahead, if not I will be behind or dead." My decisions come with a prize if I'm right and a cost if I'm wrong, and that is decided by my skill. Spawn larva offers no such considerations at no point. But I guess this is a neverending subject here, and I haven't read all the earlier discussions on it so I believe that all things already have been said.
Have you ever played zerg? I've had many many games where my base has been attacked and used transfusion and not had enough energy to spawn larva after my opponent backed off. Or spawned larva right before an attack and been one transfusion short of holding my sunken line and lost my expansion.
Maybe there isn't as much decision making throughout the game as chrono boost. But a zerg player is also paying attention to creep tumors, overlords and overseers that are spread thoughout the map. Zerg players also have to think about which hatchery they want to produce from in the later game. Mid to late game making your units at the wrong hatchery can totally screw you. By contrast protoss can make their gateway units where ever they want, but have to keep up on the warpgate cycles, as well as manage their other productions.
To directly compare spawn larva to chrono boost is absurd. You need to compare one race's macro to another in full. An do it in the game, in the context of using the UI while competing, not just sit around thinking about it.
|
United States7166 Posts
On April 23 2010 09:56 cyclone25 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 09:55 Airsick wrote:
Another unlisted change is that zerg buildings finally bleed when damaged!! +16 rate in Korea soon!
protoss buildings now have little electricity bolts flash around when damaged
|
On April 23 2010 10:00 Archerofaiur wrote:
This kind of posting style reminds me allot of a poster we have on StarcraftLegacy named Demosquid.
And just like there its not constructive in any way.
Why are mommy and daddy fighting? I think you two should just make out. Or make up. Yeah, totally meant make up.
|
Cant believe i missed this one
On April 23 2010 09:34 MidKnight wrote:
Building pylons/supply depots/overlords doesn't require any strategy either.
Thus it should be automated or just removed, it doesn't add any strategical depth.
I mean..
Supply is actually a example of a mechanic that does involve decision making. Specifically spacial, temporal and mineral tension.
|
Hmm at 52/52 supply should I spend 100 minerals on a depot or another marauder..... yes, depots/pylons have so much mineral tension
|
On April 23 2010 09:57 Adeeler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 09:34 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 09:29 Adeeler wrote:On April 23 2010 09:18 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:54 Krikkitone wrote:On April 23 2010 08:38 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:34 Archerofaiur wrote:On April 23 2010 08:31 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:17 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 23 2010 08:17 Senx wrote:
[quote]
So judging from your recent posts, I can assume you think that Starcraft Broodwar is the shittiest RTS of all time beacuse of all the mindless UI and gameplay(unit AI) -hurdles you had to overcome in order to become a really good player?
I think alot of people have a different opinion about that on this site.
Way to not read posts. I had said that I am fine with limiting factors in terms of UI. But when you have something that improves UI, and then to go back and actively remove it, is beyond me. If I thought SC was a shitty game I wouldn't be on this site watching streams at 5am every night. The health of BW's competition 10 years after release has a lot to do with the difficulty of inputting actions into the game. There has been a ton of discussion on TL.net as to why it's good for the competitive scene to have a limited UI. Honestly the best argument that can be made by people of your opinion is to just pull out of the argument and say that RTS, or the type of RTS SC:BW is, isn't your favorite kind of game. There is something uniquely good about having the most effective strategies be very difficult, essentially impossible, to perform perfectly and it ought to be a feature of all StarCraft RTS games. If you don't like it, play different kinds of games. Again MULE and Chronoboost show you can have both base management AND decision making. Completely missing the point there. This discussion is about the ease of use of the interface. Whether or not an action involves a significant decision does not change how easy the process of doing the action is. We are talking about going from thinking "I want to do this action" to the game actually doing the action. How you came to think that you want to do that action is irrelevant. It does change how easy the process Should be though. If something involves no decision making, but requires effort on my part, then it is bad for the fun of the game. Something that requires a decision that requires effort on may part is not bad for the fun of the game. It would be bad for a macro mechanic to be autocast (I agree with you there) Current Spawn Larva decision making does not justify it not being autocast ergo, Spawn Larva is bad rather than the UI* Also, The inability to cast on the wireframe is a significant nerf to abilities like Repair and Transfusion. (Which messes the Queen up even more) Simplest way to deal with it is for Spawn Larva to be made an instant cast and then rebalance it from there. (including rebalancing Hatchery Larva production) Whaaat? The fun of the game? I don't care how you get your jollies. I am trying to make sure SC2 is a good competitive game. The relationship between how effective an action is and how much effort it requires is the most important thing here. The whole fun thing is still a separate issue. I agree that we should maximize the number of significant decisions required by the game. We should put as many in as we can without compromising the balance or fun of the game. I mean, if I'm talking about how nutritious an apple is, and you say that markets are overpricing apples, we are talking about two completely separate issues. Yeah, we're both talking about apples. And yeah, you might be able to connect them in a way that is relevant to some people, like saying that overpricing a nutritious food is morally wrong... but the person talking about nutrition doesn't care about that, and the person talking about apple prices doesn't care about that. I can see how these issues in SC2 are jumbled up together and tightly related but discussion is going to go crazy if people don't handle it carefully. I get your point but still fell you'll lose more great players that get held back physically then players gained from the requirement of hardcore training at higher levels. Well yeah that's true but then would anyone consider any of the top players really great? I think you remove greatness as a possibility if you have people playing the game 20 hours a less a week getting the same results as an equally talented player playing the game 40+ hours a week. If someone wants to be great, they're going to have to play the game 40+ hours a week. That should be true of any esport. I honestly don't think having especially fast hands is required, either. Having average speed and then naturally gaining speed from playing 40+ hours a week will be good enough to be a top player. No Nony thats complete garbage reasoning. I consider TLO amazing but if he only had 1 finger on each hand would we be better of him never being able to execute his ideas if he couldn't piss away hours overcoming physical limits?
I really believe he could still play competitively with 1 finger on each hand, not every player is going to strive to be the best in the world.
|
8751 Posts
On April 23 2010 09:46 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 09:29 Liquid`NonY wrote:
How Difficult it Should be is directly related to how much of a Decision it is.
No... there should be a certain level of difficulty of doing actions across the board, just to keep the game physically demanding (for competitive and strategical reasons) so you suggest that there be a difficulty to the action of having my marine fire on the only enemy unit in range? The current difficulty of that action is exactly 0, all military units are on autoattack and can't even be switched off. the reason for that is that the decision making in that case is almost 0 as well current spawn larva should not be any more difficult than autoattack Show nested quote +
Then there should be a balancing of difficulty of actions based on what kind of actions they are. This helps to create style and diversifies strategies. The simplest demonstration of how this goes wrong: If all the macro actions are really easy, then everyone will do them nearly perfectly, so you'll never have a macro player who specializes in doing macro actions well. So you want a bit of difficulty in as wide a range of actions as possible so that people can specialize according to their style.
That's it.
I agree, the macro actions should Not be easy, they should involve significant decisions. or be cut The way I would prioritize the alternatives 1. New Zerg macromechanic that involves decision making 2. No Zerg Macromechanic 3. Current Spawn Larva mechanic with ruined UI (which affects transfusion as well) I'm making the argument that #2 is better than #3 (and #1 would be a Lot better)
Your first response to me doesn't make sense. You're the one that said how difficult an action should be is directly related to how much decision making was involved. That's all I had to do to refute that is to explain how and why there are other factors involved when determining how difficult an action should be. The best solution is for there to be enough significant decisions involved in the game to reasonably distribute the amount of actions it takes to keep the game competitively healthy. In my opinion, it's more important for the game to be competitively healthy than for every action to involve a decision. But we can have both. I'm sure there is a certain percentage of meaningful actions you need to have fun while playing the game just as there is a certain difficulty of performing actions needed to keep the game competitive. They are both important considerations. You wanted to say there was only one. I am saying there is another. Responding to me by acting as if I'm saying there is only one is feeble.
Your second response is also sort of tossing my post out the window. Macro moves need to require a significant amount of action to keep diversity of strategy alive. Cutting them too severely isn't an option. If people are saying they can't have fun playing the game because when they play Zerg they don't like having to do Spawn Larva, and they'd have fun if a more significant decision was involved when doing Spawn Larva, then sure let's have Blizzard make it have more of a decision. But severely reducing the difficulty of the act of doing it (or removing it completely) has major repercussions for other aspects of the game.
|
The incredible irony of this whole arguement is that Nony, for all the fight hes putting up, agrees that Spawn Larva should have more decision making.
|
On April 23 2010 10:00 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 09:46 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 09:40 Appendix wrote:On April 23 2010 09:20 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 09:11 Appendix wrote:On April 23 2010 09:02 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:42 Archerofaiur wrote:On April 23 2010 08:38 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:34 Archerofaiur wrote:On April 23 2010 08:31 Liquid`NonY wrote:
[quote]
The health of BW's competition 10 years after release has a lot to do with the difficulty of inputting actions into the game. There has been a ton of discussion on TL.net as to why it's good for the competitive scene to have a limited UI. Honestly the best argument that can be made by people of your opinion is to just pull out of the argument and say that RTS, or the type of RTS SC:BW is, isn't your favorite kind of game. There is something uniquely good about having the most effective strategies be very difficult, essentially impossible, to perform perfectly and it ought to be a feature of all StarCraft RTS games. If you don't like it, play different kinds of games. Again MULE and Chronoboost show you can have both base management AND decision making. Completely missing the point there. This discussion is about the ease of use of the interface. Whether or not an action involves a significant decision does not change how easy the process of doing the action is. We are talking about going from thinking "I want to do this action" to the game actually doing the action. How you came to think that you want to do that action is irrelevant. No its not. Its intrinsically tied with how the player percieves the game. Dont believe me? Run a poll asking which people perfered more: Proton Charge or Chronoboost. I have no idea what you're saying here. Are you responding to just my last sentence? The context before it matters. How you came to think that you want to an action is irrelevant to how easy the process of doing the action is. The process of doing an action is prompted by a decision. It begins after a decision has been made. Whatever difficulty, or lack of difficulty, was in the process of making the decision is not relevant. First you make the decision. Then you do something as a result of making the decision. When you do things on purpose, you must first decide things. What am I going to do? Once you have decided what you are going to do, you have to do it. The discussion here is about how difficult it is to do it. Should we make it difficult on purpose? Should we make it as easy as possible? Should we not pay attention to it at all? Is it okay to make it easy and then make it more difficult? These issues are relevant to the discussion. Anything having to do with making the decision is outside of the discussion. What he is saying is "spawn larva" not a decision, it is simply dead actions. Yep, that's irrelevant. He's using this discussion as a springboard to go off on his favorite topic. It's absolutely not what was being talked about. Just cuz one part of what we're talking about is also one part of what he wants to talk about doesn't mean he has something useful to say. But he is correct in my opinion. I disagree with you that actions and decisions are two different matters. Decisions should induce actions, and because of how well I believe I can perform those actions I adjust my decisions. "I think I can defend this rush without chronoboosting my gateway, and instead use the boost on my nexus. If I do it right, I will be ahead, if not I will be behind or dead." My decisions come with a prize if I'm right and a cost if I'm wrong, and that is decided by my skill. Spawn larva offers no such considerations at no point. But I guess this is a neverending subject here, and I haven't read all the earlier discussions on it so I believe that all things already have been said. I knew this would come up eventually. I really don't give a fuck about archerofaiur's topic. He has brought it up before, I talked about it then, and that was that. He brings it up again when it's irrelevant so I simply say it's irrelevant so maybe he'll fuck off and let the discussion I'm involved in proceed naturally without him fucking it up to feed his personal crusade. Of course he doesn't think he's being irrelevant at all and just keeps up with his routine (that poll and its question is part of his act). You are correct that it's a never-ending subject, partially because archerofaiur brings it up at every opportunity he gets. Fuck it! This kind of posting style reminds me allot of a poster we have on StarcraftLegacy named Demosquid. And just like there its not constructive in any way.
He grew tired beacuse you're trying to have a debate with him on a topic that he wasn't even talking about in the first place?
|
Really cool additions (aesthetically that is). The new dmg being shown on Protoss buildings is awesome and welcome back bleeding zerg buildings!
|
On April 23 2010 10:10 Senx wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 10:00 Archerofaiur wrote:On April 23 2010 09:46 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 09:40 Appendix wrote:On April 23 2010 09:20 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 09:11 Appendix wrote:On April 23 2010 09:02 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:42 Archerofaiur wrote:On April 23 2010 08:38 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:34 Archerofaiur wrote:
[quote]
Again MULE and Chronoboost show you can have both base management AND decision making.
Completely missing the point there. This discussion is about the ease of use of the interface. Whether or not an action involves a significant decision does not change how easy the process of doing the action is. We are talking about going from thinking "I want to do this action" to the game actually doing the action. How you came to think that you want to do that action is irrelevant. No its not. Its intrinsically tied with how the player percieves the game. Dont believe me? Run a poll asking which people perfered more: Proton Charge or Chronoboost. I have no idea what you're saying here. Are you responding to just my last sentence? The context before it matters. How you came to think that you want to an action is irrelevant to how easy the process of doing the action is. The process of doing an action is prompted by a decision. It begins after a decision has been made. Whatever difficulty, or lack of difficulty, was in the process of making the decision is not relevant. First you make the decision. Then you do something as a result of making the decision. When you do things on purpose, you must first decide things. What am I going to do? Once you have decided what you are going to do, you have to do it. The discussion here is about how difficult it is to do it. Should we make it difficult on purpose? Should we make it as easy as possible? Should we not pay attention to it at all? Is it okay to make it easy and then make it more difficult? These issues are relevant to the discussion. Anything having to do with making the decision is outside of the discussion. What he is saying is "spawn larva" not a decision, it is simply dead actions. Yep, that's irrelevant. He's using this discussion as a springboard to go off on his favorite topic. It's absolutely not what was being talked about. Just cuz one part of what we're talking about is also one part of what he wants to talk about doesn't mean he has something useful to say. But he is correct in my opinion. I disagree with you that actions and decisions are two different matters. Decisions should induce actions, and because of how well I believe I can perform those actions I adjust my decisions. "I think I can defend this rush without chronoboosting my gateway, and instead use the boost on my nexus. If I do it right, I will be ahead, if not I will be behind or dead." My decisions come with a prize if I'm right and a cost if I'm wrong, and that is decided by my skill. Spawn larva offers no such considerations at no point. But I guess this is a neverending subject here, and I haven't read all the earlier discussions on it so I believe that all things already have been said. I knew this would come up eventually. I really don't give a fuck about archerofaiur's topic. He has brought it up before, I talked about it then, and that was that. He brings it up again when it's irrelevant so I simply say it's irrelevant so maybe he'll fuck off and let the discussion I'm involved in proceed naturally without him fucking it up to feed his personal crusade. Of course he doesn't think he's being irrelevant at all and just keeps up with his routine (that poll and its question is part of his act). You are correct that it's a never-ending subject, partially because archerofaiur brings it up at every opportunity he gets. Fuck it! This kind of posting style reminds me allot of a poster we have on StarcraftLegacy named Demosquid. And just like there its not constructive in any way. He grew tired beacuse you're trying to have a debate with him on a topic that he wasn't even talking about in the first place?
As ive said before the underlying issue, and the reason this UI change took place, is the inherient shallowness of the macro mechanics.
Or is discussing the root of the problem somehow not applicable to a discussion of a problem?
|
On April 23 2010 07:06 Senx wrote:.... Show nested quote +Can no longer target spells/abilities on your buildings or units by clicking on their icons in the selected unit panel. This means you cannot Spawn Larvae nor Chrono Boost by clicking on the building icons WTF!! That is a good change..
i didn't even know u could do that, haha
woulda made things a whole lot easier
|
On April 23 2010 10:05 omg.deus wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 09:57 Adeeler wrote:On April 23 2010 09:34 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 09:29 Adeeler wrote:On April 23 2010 09:18 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:54 Krikkitone wrote:On April 23 2010 08:38 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:34 Archerofaiur wrote:On April 23 2010 08:31 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:17 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
[quote]
Way to not read posts. I had said that I am fine with limiting factors in terms of UI. But when you have something that improves UI, and then to go back and actively remove it, is beyond me.
If I thought SC was a shitty game I wouldn't be on this site watching streams at 5am every night.
The health of BW's competition 10 years after release has a lot to do with the difficulty of inputting actions into the game. There has been a ton of discussion on TL.net as to why it's good for the competitive scene to have a limited UI. Honestly the best argument that can be made by people of your opinion is to just pull out of the argument and say that RTS, or the type of RTS SC:BW is, isn't your favorite kind of game. There is something uniquely good about having the most effective strategies be very difficult, essentially impossible, to perform perfectly and it ought to be a feature of all StarCraft RTS games. If you don't like it, play different kinds of games. Again MULE and Chronoboost show you can have both base management AND decision making. Completely missing the point there. This discussion is about the ease of use of the interface. Whether or not an action involves a significant decision does not change how easy the process of doing the action is. We are talking about going from thinking "I want to do this action" to the game actually doing the action. How you came to think that you want to do that action is irrelevant. It does change how easy the process Should be though. If something involves no decision making, but requires effort on my part, then it is bad for the fun of the game. Something that requires a decision that requires effort on may part is not bad for the fun of the game. It would be bad for a macro mechanic to be autocast (I agree with you there) Current Spawn Larva decision making does not justify it not being autocast ergo, Spawn Larva is bad rather than the UI* Also, The inability to cast on the wireframe is a significant nerf to abilities like Repair and Transfusion. (Which messes the Queen up even more) Simplest way to deal with it is for Spawn Larva to be made an instant cast and then rebalance it from there. (including rebalancing Hatchery Larva production) Whaaat? The fun of the game? I don't care how you get your jollies. I am trying to make sure SC2 is a good competitive game. The relationship between how effective an action is and how much effort it requires is the most important thing here. The whole fun thing is still a separate issue. I agree that we should maximize the number of significant decisions required by the game. We should put as many in as we can without compromising the balance or fun of the game. I mean, if I'm talking about how nutritious an apple is, and you say that markets are overpricing apples, we are talking about two completely separate issues. Yeah, we're both talking about apples. And yeah, you might be able to connect them in a way that is relevant to some people, like saying that overpricing a nutritious food is morally wrong... but the person talking about nutrition doesn't care about that, and the person talking about apple prices doesn't care about that. I can see how these issues in SC2 are jumbled up together and tightly related but discussion is going to go crazy if people don't handle it carefully. I get your point but still fell you'll lose more great players that get held back physically then players gained from the requirement of hardcore training at higher levels. Well yeah that's true but then would anyone consider any of the top players really great? I think you remove greatness as a possibility if you have people playing the game 20 hours a less a week getting the same results as an equally talented player playing the game 40+ hours a week. If someone wants to be great, they're going to have to play the game 40+ hours a week. That should be true of any esport. I honestly don't think having especially fast hands is required, either. Having average speed and then naturally gaining speed from playing 40+ hours a week will be good enough to be a top player. No Nony thats complete garbage reasoning. I consider TLO amazing but if he only had 1 finger on each hand would we be better of him never being able to execute his ideas if he couldn't piss away hours overcoming physical limits? I really believe he could still play competitively with 1 finger on each hand
hehe yeh probably
I just don't see why anyone should need to live a skrewed up life just cos of a shit UI in a game they enjoy just to stay competative. The better mind should win everytime not the best muscles/genes/lifestyle that allows access to the most practice time.
20 hours a week seems like enough to me. 40 hours if its your actual job you'd put that in as a matter of course but should we be doing that just to be mechanically capable as non-pro-housed players? I think not.
|
Usually when it isn't documented it is a bug.
|
8751 Posts
On April 23 2010 09:57 Adeeler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 09:34 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 09:29 Adeeler wrote:On April 23 2010 09:18 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:54 Krikkitone wrote:On April 23 2010 08:38 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:34 Archerofaiur wrote:On April 23 2010 08:31 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:17 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 23 2010 08:17 Senx wrote:
[quote]
So judging from your recent posts, I can assume you think that Starcraft Broodwar is the shittiest RTS of all time beacuse of all the mindless UI and gameplay(unit AI) -hurdles you had to overcome in order to become a really good player?
I think alot of people have a different opinion about that on this site.
Way to not read posts. I had said that I am fine with limiting factors in terms of UI. But when you have something that improves UI, and then to go back and actively remove it, is beyond me. If I thought SC was a shitty game I wouldn't be on this site watching streams at 5am every night. The health of BW's competition 10 years after release has a lot to do with the difficulty of inputting actions into the game. There has been a ton of discussion on TL.net as to why it's good for the competitive scene to have a limited UI. Honestly the best argument that can be made by people of your opinion is to just pull out of the argument and say that RTS, or the type of RTS SC:BW is, isn't your favorite kind of game. There is something uniquely good about having the most effective strategies be very difficult, essentially impossible, to perform perfectly and it ought to be a feature of all StarCraft RTS games. If you don't like it, play different kinds of games. Again MULE and Chronoboost show you can have both base management AND decision making. Completely missing the point there. This discussion is about the ease of use of the interface. Whether or not an action involves a significant decision does not change how easy the process of doing the action is. We are talking about going from thinking "I want to do this action" to the game actually doing the action. How you came to think that you want to do that action is irrelevant. It does change how easy the process Should be though. If something involves no decision making, but requires effort on my part, then it is bad for the fun of the game. Something that requires a decision that requires effort on may part is not bad for the fun of the game. It would be bad for a macro mechanic to be autocast (I agree with you there) Current Spawn Larva decision making does not justify it not being autocast ergo, Spawn Larva is bad rather than the UI* Also, The inability to cast on the wireframe is a significant nerf to abilities like Repair and Transfusion. (Which messes the Queen up even more) Simplest way to deal with it is for Spawn Larva to be made an instant cast and then rebalance it from there. (including rebalancing Hatchery Larva production) Whaaat? The fun of the game? I don't care how you get your jollies. I am trying to make sure SC2 is a good competitive game. The relationship between how effective an action is and how much effort it requires is the most important thing here. The whole fun thing is still a separate issue. I agree that we should maximize the number of significant decisions required by the game. We should put as many in as we can without compromising the balance or fun of the game. I mean, if I'm talking about how nutritious an apple is, and you say that markets are overpricing apples, we are talking about two completely separate issues. Yeah, we're both talking about apples. And yeah, you might be able to connect them in a way that is relevant to some people, like saying that overpricing a nutritious food is morally wrong... but the person talking about nutrition doesn't care about that, and the person talking about apple prices doesn't care about that. I can see how these issues in SC2 are jumbled up together and tightly related but discussion is going to go crazy if people don't handle it carefully. I get your point but still fell you'll lose more great players that get held back physically then players gained from the requirement of hardcore training at higher levels. Well yeah that's true but then would anyone consider any of the top players really great? I think you remove greatness as a possibility if you have people playing the game 20 hours a less a week getting the same results as an equally talented player playing the game 40+ hours a week. If someone wants to be great, they're going to have to play the game 40+ hours a week. That should be true of any esport. I honestly don't think having especially fast hands is required, either. Having average speed and then naturally gaining speed from playing 40+ hours a week will be good enough to be a top player. No Nony thats complete garbage reasoning. I consider TLO amazing but if he only had 1 finger on each hand would we be better of him never being able to execute his ideas if he couldn't piss away hours overcoming physical limits? Edit i'm harsh to say garbage. I only think we will lose out on new great protosses mainly, its for them i fear.
Someone with a physical disability is outside of my reasoning... but what more can I say than that there is a physical component? People don't approach other established and successful competitions and complain to them that they have arbitrary requirements, that they'd rather some of the requirements be dropped so people that excel in the other requirements can have more success... I'm just a guy who thinks SC:BW was absolutely brilliant and a wonderful game and I'd love for SC2 to be like it in essence, as a sequel should be, but with updated content. There is a strong physical component in the game we play here and that's just the way it is. It could be worse. Like I said, I think no special talent is required for the physical part of the game. Average ability + sufficient training = good enough to be a top player.
|
On April 23 2010 10:13 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 09:57 Adeeler wrote:On April 23 2010 09:34 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 09:29 Adeeler wrote:On April 23 2010 09:18 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:54 Krikkitone wrote:On April 23 2010 08:38 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:34 Archerofaiur wrote:On April 23 2010 08:31 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:17 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
[quote]
Way to not read posts. I had said that I am fine with limiting factors in terms of UI. But when you have something that improves UI, and then to go back and actively remove it, is beyond me.
If I thought SC was a shitty game I wouldn't be on this site watching streams at 5am every night.
The health of BW's competition 10 years after release has a lot to do with the difficulty of inputting actions into the game. There has been a ton of discussion on TL.net as to why it's good for the competitive scene to have a limited UI. Honestly the best argument that can be made by people of your opinion is to just pull out of the argument and say that RTS, or the type of RTS SC:BW is, isn't your favorite kind of game. There is something uniquely good about having the most effective strategies be very difficult, essentially impossible, to perform perfectly and it ought to be a feature of all StarCraft RTS games. If you don't like it, play different kinds of games. Again MULE and Chronoboost show you can have both base management AND decision making. Completely missing the point there. This discussion is about the ease of use of the interface. Whether or not an action involves a significant decision does not change how easy the process of doing the action is. We are talking about going from thinking "I want to do this action" to the game actually doing the action. How you came to think that you want to do that action is irrelevant. It does change how easy the process Should be though. If something involves no decision making, but requires effort on my part, then it is bad for the fun of the game. Something that requires a decision that requires effort on may part is not bad for the fun of the game. It would be bad for a macro mechanic to be autocast (I agree with you there) Current Spawn Larva decision making does not justify it not being autocast ergo, Spawn Larva is bad rather than the UI* Also, The inability to cast on the wireframe is a significant nerf to abilities like Repair and Transfusion. (Which messes the Queen up even more) Simplest way to deal with it is for Spawn Larva to be made an instant cast and then rebalance it from there. (including rebalancing Hatchery Larva production) Whaaat? The fun of the game? I don't care how you get your jollies. I am trying to make sure SC2 is a good competitive game. The relationship between how effective an action is and how much effort it requires is the most important thing here. The whole fun thing is still a separate issue. I agree that we should maximize the number of significant decisions required by the game. We should put as many in as we can without compromising the balance or fun of the game. I mean, if I'm talking about how nutritious an apple is, and you say that markets are overpricing apples, we are talking about two completely separate issues. Yeah, we're both talking about apples. And yeah, you might be able to connect them in a way that is relevant to some people, like saying that overpricing a nutritious food is morally wrong... but the person talking about nutrition doesn't care about that, and the person talking about apple prices doesn't care about that. I can see how these issues in SC2 are jumbled up together and tightly related but discussion is going to go crazy if people don't handle it carefully. I get your point but still fell you'll lose more great players that get held back physically then players gained from the requirement of hardcore training at higher levels. Well yeah that's true but then would anyone consider any of the top players really great? I think you remove greatness as a possibility if you have people playing the game 20 hours a less a week getting the same results as an equally talented player playing the game 40+ hours a week. If someone wants to be great, they're going to have to play the game 40+ hours a week. That should be true of any esport. I honestly don't think having especially fast hands is required, either. Having average speed and then naturally gaining speed from playing 40+ hours a week will be good enough to be a top player. No Nony thats complete garbage reasoning. I consider TLO amazing but if he only had 1 finger on each hand would we be better of him never being able to execute his ideas if he couldn't piss away hours overcoming physical limits? Edit i'm harsh to say garbage. I only think we will lose out on new great protosses mainly, its for them i fear. Someone with a physical disability is outside of my reasoning... but what more can I say than that there is a physical component? People don't approach other established and successful competitions and complain to them that they have arbitrary requirements, that they'd rather some of the requirements be dropped so people that excel in the other requirements can have more success... I'm just a guy who thinks SC:BW was absolutely brilliant and a wonderful game and I'd love for SC2 to be like it in essence, as a sequel should be, but with updated content. There is a strong physical component in the game we play here and that's just the way it is. It could be worse. Like I said, I think no special talent is required for the physical part of the game. Average ability + sufficient training = good enough to be a top player.
This is why the servers need to be back up ^
Flame wars should never involve Nony.
|
On April 23 2010 09:57 Adeeler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 09:34 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 09:29 Adeeler wrote:On April 23 2010 09:18 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:54 Krikkitone wrote:On April 23 2010 08:38 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:34 Archerofaiur wrote:On April 23 2010 08:31 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 23 2010 08:17 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On April 23 2010 08:17 Senx wrote:
[quote]
So judging from your recent posts, I can assume you think that Starcraft Broodwar is the shittiest RTS of all time beacuse of all the mindless UI and gameplay(unit AI) -hurdles you had to overcome in order to become a really good player?
I think alot of people have a different opinion about that on this site.
Way to not read posts. I had said that I am fine with limiting factors in terms of UI. But when you have something that improves UI, and then to go back and actively remove it, is beyond me. If I thought SC was a shitty game I wouldn't be on this site watching streams at 5am every night. The health of BW's competition 10 years after release has a lot to do with the difficulty of inputting actions into the game. There has been a ton of discussion on TL.net as to why it's good for the competitive scene to have a limited UI. Honestly the best argument that can be made by people of your opinion is to just pull out of the argument and say that RTS, or the type of RTS SC:BW is, isn't your favorite kind of game. There is something uniquely good about having the most effective strategies be very difficult, essentially impossible, to perform perfectly and it ought to be a feature of all StarCraft RTS games. If you don't like it, play different kinds of games. Again MULE and Chronoboost show you can have both base management AND decision making. Completely missing the point there. This discussion is about the ease of use of the interface. Whether or not an action involves a significant decision does not change how easy the process of doing the action is. We are talking about going from thinking "I want to do this action" to the game actually doing the action. How you came to think that you want to do that action is irrelevant. It does change how easy the process Should be though. If something involves no decision making, but requires effort on my part, then it is bad for the fun of the game. Something that requires a decision that requires effort on may part is not bad for the fun of the game. It would be bad for a macro mechanic to be autocast (I agree with you there) Current Spawn Larva decision making does not justify it not being autocast ergo, Spawn Larva is bad rather than the UI* Also, The inability to cast on the wireframe is a significant nerf to abilities like Repair and Transfusion. (Which messes the Queen up even more) Simplest way to deal with it is for Spawn Larva to be made an instant cast and then rebalance it from there. (including rebalancing Hatchery Larva production) Whaaat? The fun of the game? I don't care how you get your jollies. I am trying to make sure SC2 is a good competitive game. The relationship between how effective an action is and how much effort it requires is the most important thing here. The whole fun thing is still a separate issue. I agree that we should maximize the number of significant decisions required by the game. We should put as many in as we can without compromising the balance or fun of the game. I mean, if I'm talking about how nutritious an apple is, and you say that markets are overpricing apples, we are talking about two completely separate issues. Yeah, we're both talking about apples. And yeah, you might be able to connect them in a way that is relevant to some people, like saying that overpricing a nutritious food is morally wrong... but the person talking about nutrition doesn't care about that, and the person talking about apple prices doesn't care about that. I can see how these issues in SC2 are jumbled up together and tightly related but discussion is going to go crazy if people don't handle it carefully. I get your point but still fell you'll lose more great players that get held back physically then players gained from the requirement of hardcore training at higher levels. Well yeah that's true but then would anyone consider any of the top players really great? I think you remove greatness as a possibility if you have people playing the game 20 hours a less a week getting the same results as an equally talented player playing the game 40+ hours a week. If someone wants to be great, they're going to have to play the game 40+ hours a week. That should be true of any esport. I honestly don't think having especially fast hands is required, either. Having average speed and then naturally gaining speed from playing 40+ hours a week will be good enough to be a top player. No Nony thats complete garbage reasoning. I consider TLO amazing but if he only had 1 finger on each hand would we be better of him never being able to execute his ideas if he couldn't piss away hours overcoming physical limits?
No. THIS is complete garbage reasoning, and a complete misunderstanding of what Nony was trying to convey with his post. Of course, any sort of videogame or a physical sport will have limitations based on the human body, at least until we invent some sort of game that plays solely through the mind (chess is like this). Peyton Manning is one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time, largely in part because he is a true student of the game. But if he doesn't have arms then he can't be the player he is right now. True. Obviously true. But this kind of argument is completely irrelevant to the point above.
The point is that a game should allow for a very high ceiling of play or competition in order to even have '"truly great" players. For example, there is no serious Wii Mario Kart scene at the moment, nor do I think there ever will be one. This is because a child who plays the game 10 hours a week can become just as good as a man playing 40 hours a week due to the randomness of the game, its easy mechanics, and the tendency to rubberband last place players back into the game. A serious E-sport game is going to require that a player who practices more or more effectively will usually win over another player who does not practice as much. And the greatest e-sports have insanely high skill caps. Both Counterstrike and Starcraft create an environment in which initial or nascent skill must be developed through countless hours of practice in order to reach a high level of competitive play.
|
8751 Posts
On April 23 2010 10:10 Archerofaiur wrote:
The incredible irony of this whole arguement is that Nony, for all the fight hes putting up, agrees that Spawn Larva should have more decision making.
It's not ironic at all. So what if I have the same conclusion as you do in the topic you're trying to bring up? I wasn't avoiding your topic because I disagree with its conclusion. The point is that it wasn't what people were talking about before you came along. I liked the discussion that was going on and I wanted to see it to the end without you turning it into something else. That's the reason for all the fight I put up and it makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
