EPTOh Micro, Where Art Thou? - Page 63
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Zeke50100
United States2220 Posts
| ||
|
carwashguy
United States175 Posts
I just am a little skeptical, is all. How many games can a human really solve? Tic-tac-toe for sure. | ||
|
diehard143
United States4 Posts
Go watch replay and tell me there is no micro. | ||
|
phyvo
United States5635 Posts
On April 30 2010 09:56 carwashguy wrote: The 100m dash is a competition, not a game. Competitions require little to no competitor interaction. Starcraft is a game, and that's the difference. However, there is something to be said about speed. If Starcraft was turn-based, there'd be no need, but since it works in real time, processing speed is an important aspect of the game. The faster player should and will have an advantage. What you have to keep in mind is that processing speed, the ability to make decisions and execute them rapidly, is not the same thing as APM or "micro," in which this thread is the topic of. Clicking a unit a hundred times to do a maneuver may've only been one or two actual decisions that the player had to actually process, the rest is just superfluous necessary evils. Yeah, you just redefined competition to not include... competitive games. What else are we supposed to call it? Competition may not absolutely require direct interaction between the two competitors, but that doesn't mean that direct interaction, even via a virtual environment, precludes competition. Say we both want a sandwich and we arm wrestle for it. We are competing for the sandwich. Insert "play starcraft" and you still have a competition. Insert "for 1st place in the HDH" and we're still competing. You also, and forgive me if I get unnecessarily verbose here, seem to misunderstand decision making. Pros do not make decisions really fast. The adage is "if you have to think, you've lost already". Pros make all of their hardest decisions in advance, just like any other athlete: how best to train their minds and bodies before the event. Then when they play the game they do their best to get into an zone where most of the game is automatic so that they do not have to consciously think. Ideally microing for a pro involves no decisions whatsoever. Ideally, they pick their whole strategy beforehand and everything else is just execution. It's a performance. Even in chess the best players do not think the same way lesser players do at all. They do not simply run really fast and deep through all the strategical steps that lesser players would have to do to play at their level. They simply make the same number of decisions but at a much higher level of the game. The rest is just the "necessary evil" of ceremony, decisions which really weren't decisions. That said, decisions will still end up being made in the game at some level. But this ability does not come from some kind of purely cerebral gift. Often it is just as much hard work and training as everything else that makes a good player. These mental shortcuts are the basis that allows for great micro, macro, tactical and strategical finesse. All four. TLDR: technical abilities are more than "necessary evils". They are a valid way to express one's superiority at the game as any other ability that a player may have. Moving shot could be one of the ways to promote these abilities. [edit] I guess this took to long to write that my points may no longer really be useful. But chess is actually not far from being solved, even by people. Most games between masters actually end in ties. | ||
|
carwashguy
United States175 Posts
Btw, yes chess masters draw a lot, but not because computers, much less humans, are close to solving it. Wikipedia's saying a computer would need to calculate 10^120 variations, a ridiculous scale for a human to approach. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 30 2010 09:56 carwashguy wrote: The 100m dash is a competition, not a game. Competitions require little to no competitor interaction. Starcraft is a game, and that's the difference. However, there is something to be said about speed. If Starcraft was turn-based, there'd be no need, but since it works in real time, processing speed is an important aspect of the game. The faster player should and will have an advantage. What you have to keep in mind is that processing speed, the ability to make decisions and execute them rapidly, is not the same thing as APM or "micro," in which this thread is the topic of. Clicking a unit a hundred times to do a maneuver may've only been one or two actual decisions that the player had to actually process, the rest is just superfluous necessary evils. No. -APM is a dynamic resource players work with. A ghost lock down costs more then 100 energy, it costs 100 energy+3 apm which could have been used doing other things. This greatly heightens the amount of decision making involved in the process. Also, explain to me how Move click results in "unnecessary clicks". Move click increases a players strategic options, and increases -apm to match this. On April 30 2010 11:50 Zeke50100 wrote: Because something not being difficult will always end up with everyone being pro players, right? >.> Of course not, you're absolutely right, something that isn't difficult results in the lack of professional players what so ever because nobody in the right mind would quit there day jobs to play it. Competitions require little to no competitor interaction. Are you seriously making up definitions to suit your argument? Find a single legit source that agrees with you. Or shut up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition You literally pulled that definition out of your ass. | ||
|
carwashguy
United States175 Posts
A ghost lock down costs 100 energy + 3 apm. You're argument is that by making it rather 100 energy + 13 apm, we can improve the game. Am I following? "Are you seriously making up definitions to suit your argument?" ... "You're right. I should've just said that it was interaction that separates the 100m from Starcraft." - The post above yours. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 30 2010 13:04 carwashguy wrote: Uh huh, time is a resource, and the faster player will have an advantage. Agreed. A ghost lock down costs 100 energy + 3 apm. You're argument is that by making it rather 100 energy + 13 apm, we can improve the game. Am I following? ... Please, explain to me how implementing moving shot creates a disproportionate relationship between apm required to use and strategic options. No, moving shot increases strategic options and increases micro required to use completely equally. Nobody is advocating we bring back 12 unit select caps. Think before you post. Nobody is advocating we increase -apm to do things we can already do. We are argueing to allow us to do more things with -apm that we can't do right now. You're side doesn't have a freaking point. You have to argue how increased strategic and micromanagement options would detriment starcraft 2. Go. | ||
|
carwashguy
United States175 Posts
On April 30 2010 13:06 Half wrote: Please, explain to me how implementing moving shot creates a disproportionate relationship between apm required to use and strategic options. Any superfluous APM that is not required in maintaining the games depth will only catch the player up in "empty" actions that have no strategic value in themselves. They're necessary evils for preforming maneuvers that ought not to be required if it can be helped. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 30 2010 13:10 carwashguy wrote: Any superfluous APM that is not required in maintaining the games depth will only catch the player up in "empty" actions that have no strategic value in themselves. They're necessary evils for preforming maneuvers that ought not to be required if it can be helped. Are you daft? Right now, after attacking, I cannot move anywhere, hence, I am lacking a strategic opportunity, as well as a micromanagement one. After the proposed changed, after attacking, I am able to click somewhere else to move, hence, increasing strategic opportunities as well as micromanagement ones. I don't understand how this gets any simpler. Please read. | ||
|
carwashguy
United States175 Posts
A: Status quo, good damage, less APM B: Moving shot enabled, but damage decreased precisely enough to make this equally valuable as option A. Both are now exactly equal in terms of value, but one takes extra APM, that you could be using to make a probe, in order for it to work as good. I'm guessing this would make you happy, and this is at its core where we disagree. Edit: and it'd be nice if we can be civil about this. I won't tolerate your insults much longer. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 30 2010 13:22 carwashguy wrote: Really, you could build a probe or something during that dead time, but I see what you're saying. Have you considered this "cannot move anywhere" could be intentional? To keep balance, let's look at two options: A: Status quo, good damage, less APM B: Moving shot enabled, but damage decreased precisely enough to make this equally valuable as option A. Both are now exactly equal in terms of value, but one takes extra APM, that you could be using to make a probe, in order for it to work as good. I'm guessing this would make you happy, and this is at its core where we disagree. It isn't about "work as good". Starcraft 1 micro was exciting because of the degree and precision of control alloted to the player. Meaningful player control is always beneficial to an RTS. | ||
|
carwashguy
United States175 Posts
| ||
|
EPO
Canada341 Posts
goin personal up in here! | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 30 2010 13:41 carwashguy wrote: If that's the case, then do seiged tanks upset you? Wouldn't that be the worse off ground equivilent of not having moving shot? Some units can be slow and clunky by design, as a detriment, and add to the game's depth in a meaningful way. You're right, and this was addressed on the first page. The Phoenix's lack of mobility is not significant to the point where it actively impedes the player and has to be played around. If they wanted to make it glide like 3 units instead of .2, I'd be ok with that. In fact its also addressed in part in the original post. Mobility can be limited in favor of positional play. Positional play can be awesome, such as with Dragoons or Siege tanks, but it can also be counterproductive, as posited in the original thread. Limited mobility gives pheonixes a role that encourages them to be bunched up into your main army, or left at your base for defense. | ||
|
madcow305
United States152 Posts
On April 30 2010 07:06 Xenocide_Knight wrote: I'm sorry I lied, I had to come back for this just because of how ridiculous it is. Let me fix some words for you because you clearly were confused And then on TOP of that, you need to be dodging emps and firing stasis fields in an epic air battle of vessels vs arbiters above the main battle. You also need to lay mines/defuse mines and make sure your zealots drag mines instead of attacking them and dying. Also, make sure your obs don't overlap fields of vision so you can get maximum detection for the least number of observers. oh and make sure your arbiters aren't fighting goliaths. On top of that, you want to be careful how much you stasis because if you stasis too many, the reinforcements will come as they unfreeze and own your face. And then if you're not Best, utilize shuttle reaver micro and make sure your reaver is doing as much dmg possible per shot. And try to storm areas that are the most heavily concentrated. But storm carefully as you don't want to hit your own zealots. You may or may not have a shuttle for your hightemplar to micro with. Damn thats pretty easy. We should tell all the progamers to do this build more so they stop getting roflstomped by flash. Way to compare an early-game PvT fight from SC2 vs. a late-game PvT fight from SC1. Do you know why I made the Bulldog example? Because it's a common SC1 timing attack made by Protoss against Terran, just like 3-4 Warpgate + Robo timing attacks in SC2. In the SC2 example, I listed all of the micro aspects that came into play in the fight. In the SC1 example, when the Bulldog attack hits, the Terran should have only 1-2 tanks with Siege, Marines, and be researching Mines on his Machine Shop. Therefore, the only micro the Protoss has to be doing with his forces is dropping Zealots on the tank with his Shuttle, and microing his dragoons. There's only 2-3 units on the Terran side, depending on if he has vultures or not, with no spell casters, and there's only 3 units on the Protoss side, with no spellcasters. Micro is bound to be simpler because there's simply less units to work with, and nothing can cast yet. But you, being the old, bitter SC1 player you are, knew perfectly that a Bulldog didn't have nearly the micro required of a warpgate/robo push, so you deliberately picked an SC1 example with tons of micro, to somehow negate my argument that SC2 has high micro requirements. If you want to compare lategame battles, then sure, lets compare lategame battles between SC2 and SC1. Just first admit that a Bulldog from SC1 requires less micro than an SC2 Warpgate/Robo push first. If you don't believe this, then give me the micro requirements for a Toss doing a Bulldog against a Siege-Expand Terran, and explain to me why it requires more micro than SC2 warpgate/robo push. They're both early mid-game timing attacks made by Protoss against Terran. I chose the Bulldog specifically because it mimics the SC2 early warp-gate/robo timing attack Now, on to the lategame battle comparison: SC1 PvT lategame consists of: Zealot/Dragoon/Arbiter/Templar/Shuttle vs. Vulture/Tank/Science Vessel/Goliath. Things the Protoss needs to do: 1. Hit when the Terran is moving his tanks unsieged. 2. Mine-drag with his Zealots. 3. Form a good firing arc, doing max damage and taking min damage. 4. Stasis the tanks in the back, so as not to create an invincible wall of tanks the Dragoons have to walk around. 5. Storm the biggest clumps of tanks he can find. 6. Dodge EMPs, particularly with Arbiters and HTs 7. Stasis Vessels with leftover energy to prevent detection. 8. move-shoot his Dragoons, and target-fire tanks when necessary, making sure to minimize overkill. 9. Goons need to always be shooting tanks, and not Vultures/Goliaths/Vessels. Total of 5 unit types on Protoss side, 4 unit types on Terran side. SC2 PvT lategame consists of Zealot/Sentry/Stalker/Immortal/Templar/Colossus vs. Marine/Marauder/Medivac/Vikiing/Ghost. Things the Protoss needs to do: 1. Form a good firing arc, doing max damage and taking min damage. 2. Keep GS on his whole army while using as little energy from his Sentries as possible. 3. Use Forcefield to disrupt the Terran firing arc, and to keep reinforcements back. 4. Target-fire with his Colossi on the Terran's Marines and Ghosts. Because 2 Colossi shots kill a Marine, he needs to micro every pair of Colossi and have them shoot down all the Marine/Ghost clumps first, as fast as he can. At the same time, he needs to reduce overkill, and not target-fire with more than 2 Colossi at a time. 5. Immortals need to always be shooting at Marauders, not Ghosts/Marines, because of the bonus damage factor. Again, reduce overkill. 6. Sentries need to always be shooting biological targets, due to their bonus damage vs. them. 7. Templar need to be Feedbacking Ghosts as fast as possible. 8. Templars need to be Storming M&M clumps. 9. The entire army needs to dodge EMPs, especially the Templar. 10. Medivacs can be feedbacked with remaining templar energy. 11. Stalkers need to be Blinked as close to the Vikings as possible to target-fire them, and minimize Colossi losses. Total of 5 Unit types on Protoss side, 5 unit types on Terran side. Similar amount of Micro required in both SC1 and SC2 in the late-game in PvT. SC2 does not lack micro compared to SC1 when observing large army battles. The only difference is in small scale and engine-based glitches, like moving shot and Muta micro. BUT, we haven't even found the engine glitches in SC2's programming. Who's to say that SC2 won't have SC1's small quirks like Muta stacking in a different form? Do you know all of the bugs SC2's engine has? The crux of the OP's argument is that small SC1 game bugs like Muta stacking and moving-shot were wholly representative of the game's Micro, and since SC2 doesn't have these exact same bugs, there is no Micro in SC2. This is wrong, simply because we haven't discovered SC2's game engine bugs, and even without them, there's still a huge amount of micro involved in battles due to each race having more viable spellcasters, and more armor-type bonus damage. On April 30 2010 07:27 Zeke50100 wrote: I love all of those unit name replacements, because a number of them are inherently WRONG. 1. Arbiters and Sentries play entirely different roles. Guardian Shields reduce damage, while Arbiters negate it entirely. Similarily, detection will nullify the Arbiter's effect, while only killing will stop Sentries. Furthermore, Sentries are much easier to obtain, so shutting down Guardian shields is even more difficult, giving you more incentive to place them correctly (You get maximum effect while at the same time annoying the opponent while they try to target your well-placed sentries). Also, Stasis =/= Force Field. Stasis removes a unit from play for a given amount of time, while Force Field will make unit control much more difficult. They CAN be used similarily, but Force Field has a much wider range of ability. 2. Immortals and Stalkers are both more expensive than the Dragoon, and the Zealot is melee. This one doesn't even make sense. 4. In this case, the Dragoons have nothing better to do than kill Tanks. Stalkers, however, should be firing at Marines as well as Marauders. Every wasted Stalker shot is a potential 1/5th Marine's HP. Dragoons won't even care about wasted shots due to Vultures just tickling them, rather than being a real threat. 5. Tank splash applies in SC2 as well. 6. Stasis, once fired, will not have any other effect. Force Field, on the other hand, lasts for quite a while. They can't be used in the same way in this case. As for the rest, dodging EMPs with your HT and firing Feedbacks is very important, due to how the Ghost will cripple any/all Immortals. Observer overlap is EXACTLY the same in both games. You have to make sure your Immortals aren't fighting Marines, or your Stalkers aren't fighting Marauders, or your Zealots are fighting Marauders, etc. You have to be careful with Guardian Shield, as well, because wasting all of them will mean they can focus fire your Sentries quickly and leave you much less defended. Try thinking before replacing unit names just because abilities "might" be used in a similar way. Nevermind that his comparison was a lategame PvT, while mine was an early/mid-game timing push. On April 30 2010 07:38 Xenocide_Knight wrote: I can only assume at this point that you are another person who hasn't played broodwar Try to think in terms of the roles of the units. Stalker immortal sentry is the backbone of protoss in sc2 just like zealot/goon/arbiter is in BW Also, consider I had to replace an early game sc2 example with a mid/late game Broodwar example because an early PvT push in Broodwar is so much more micro intensive that it's not even comparable. Not shown in video: Mine defuse micro Early PvT push in SC1 is more micro intensive? Please, give me names of timing pushes made by Toss against Terrans in the early/mid-game, and explain the micro involved. I already used Bulldog as an example of a timing attack that isn't very micro-intensive. On April 30 2010 08:06 Prototype wrote: Unfortunately, madcow's post is plainly ardent and partisan in favor of SC2. His example is flawed because it distorts large portions of the wealth of complexity inherent in BW army-micro and ignores the relationship between efficiency and investment (or feasibility). Protoss were known to be the race that required the least amount of micro in BW, but even if we ignore the skewed nature of his example (which conveniently ignores casters - compare the Arbiter cloak to the Guardian Shield) Dragoons still need to position themselves and micro against Vultures/Mines (in relation to tanks), which is in no way different from SC2 positioning and anti-Marauder micro. Still, I admit we often see lapses of Dragoon micro in BW (even amongst progamers). However, this is no different from the, as madcow argues, 'lacking' micro of many SC2 players! Why? The reason is the other part of the crux of micro - efficiency vs investment. Put simply, Mutalisk micro is a skill honed by progamers because it is highly efficient. My question is thus, is the effort put into Dragoon (and Stalker) micro (in relation to other actions) efficient enough to warrant the same kind of investment (both in-game and during practice)? PS. BW did use 'bonus damage', it just wasn't as ridiculously pronounced as in SC2. As for the OP, as thinly veiled as his contempt is, he makes a great point. I would argue that the 'problems' of SC2 lie in finding a balance between the words 'diversity, versitality and viability' as pertaining to the units and their interrelationships, as well as micro. If the game can't support a wealth of tactical unit combinations, it doesn't matter how good the macro mechanics or how many options for build orders there are since the game will never evolve a meta-game that comes anywhere near the strategical or tactical depth and diversity of BW. I didn't ignore casters anywhere. What I did was compare a mid-game timing attack from SC1 (Bulldog) to a mid-game timing attack from SC2 (Warpgate/Robo). Firstly, I picked PvT arbitrarily. If you believe Protoss feature less micro required in SC1, then I'll happily pick a different matchup and compare SC2 to SC1 again. The fact that the SC2 timing attack includes a caster in the Sentry doesn't make my point less valid. What it does show is that casters are a vital part of SC2 armies at an earlier stage than they were in SC1, meaning combat at the early stages of SC2 requires more micro, due to having Spellcasters to worry about. This doesn't really apply to Zerg, though. Thirdly, yes, Dragoon vs. Mine/Tank/EMP micro is comparable to SC2 Stalker micro. I am going to cover a lategame PvT from SC1 vs. SC2 earlier in my reply. Please refer to that and tell me if I'm wrong and missing micro requirements. Fourthly, your point about efficiency vs. investment was largely because people discovered highly efficient glitches in SC1's engine, and exploited them. What if, 2 years from now, someone discovers that grouping Hellions together with Ebays allowed them to Shoot-move like in SC1? Progamers would undoubtably gravitate and hone their Ebay-Hellion micro to the max. The point is, we haven't discovered these engine bugs in SC2, hence why there aren't any broken Micro tricks like Muta stacking. On April 30 2010 09:45 Xenocide_Knight wrote: 100m dash Oh wow it so interesting! So much depth! Layers and layers of strategy and tactics No, it's just really really hard to execute physically. Thats why people watch. because it's something they just can't do. Take out the physical aspect of it and it's possibly the dumbest sport ever. Same with starcraft. Strategy and tactics isn't something you do in an RTS because you're clever. That's the person who discovers it but the person who has the physical ability to actually execute it is the one who wins. Look at the Bisu build or the Fantasy Mech in Broodwar. Try doing it and I guarantee you will get rolled. Why? Because it requires a HUGE about of apm to make in viable. With the physical factor taken out, the competition is also taken out. Because anyone can do it. You realize you're shooting yourself in the foot, because not very many people watch the Olympics compared to other sporting events like the World Cup, right? Yea, running 100m is boring. That's why less people watch it. Don't believe me? How many famous runners are there in the world? Now how many famous Football/Soccer players are there? Or Basketball players? Or American Football players? What's the difference between Track & Field and Basketball/Football? One requires pure physical ability, the other requires pure physical ability and also strategy. Heck, besides the Olympics, what other Track & Field shows are there on TV? None. But, ESPN 2 has Poker all the time. Poker, a none-physical activity, is more popular than the 100m, a purely physical activity. Golf, a less physically-intensive sport, is more popular than the 100m. These themes show that a game/sport with mainly physical ability as its defining point (100m dash, swimming, etc.) are less popular among the general public than Poker and Golf, games of strategy. So, looking at these themes, SC2 would be more successful as a deep strategy game, than a game of physical ability to excecute. _________________________________________________________________________________ Another thing that's caught my interest is the argument that adding APM sinks doesn't make the game better or more competitive or a better Esport. What if, in SC2, units had a firing range, but they didn't auto-attack, and you have to manually target things in order to shoot them? That'd definitely be an APM sink. Whoever can clone his units in the right numbers to one-shot a certain unit, then target-fire the enemy faster and more precisely while reducing overkill would win. But, would that make the game better? It would make SC2 require much, MUCH more APM than SC1. You would need tons of physical clicking ability, both to click rapidly and to click accurately. Just food for thought for all the people advocating that SC2 takes less APM to play, and therefore is a worse and less competitive game than SC1. | ||
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
When I compare the intense, intricate micro of starcraft 1 to starcraft 2 I'm just left dissapointed, especially since there are so many things blizzard could do to change this, and lets hope they do instead of all this armour type bonus damage nonsense. | ||
|
GunSlinger
614 Posts
On April 27 2010 08:32 LaLuSh wrote: Putting someone like Dustin Browder in charge of development for SC2 though, is almost like letting one of the many overly-enthuasiastic-and-overly-optimistic TL forum resident D- noobs have the last say about what is good and bad for a multi million dollar game. Sure those crazy (slightly delusional) threads about the viability of some obscure unit or strategy can be fun to read from time to time. But in the end it's always reassuring to have that old veteran come in, one of those fountains of cynicism, to tell you what will work and what won't. What's realistic and what's not. Where your focus should rather lie instead of wasting your time with things might be awesome but don't work in reality. I feel that Blizzard desperately needed but lacked one of those voices in the development of SC2. The passion is there no doubt, but there needs to be a voice of reason behind it all. I loved this article, and I agree with almost everything. SC2 needs to be gutted and revamped before it even begins to measure up to the original. And yes it should have to measure up to the original. Want to know why? Because it's a fucking sequel. | ||
|
mfukar
Greece41 Posts
On April 29 2010 18:53 pheus wrote: Really depends if he is designing for the top level gamers or the lowest common denominator. I think we both know what it looks like so far. One interesting thing I have noticed is that every micro example I've seen for sc2 so far is for very small engagements, 1 unit vs 2 units, a hand full of stalkers, a single hellion or something like that. Those using those examples to back up their support of the current micro in sc2: Do you think micro only has a place in the first 5 minutes of a Starcraft game? *edit* also, considering it IS a beta, what argument can be made against *trying* moving shot (or any other micro sugggestions) for even a week or so. Is that not the point of the beta, to try things out before the game goes retail and it's harder to change. First off, no, I think we both have different opinions in at least one level about SC2. Secondly, I could come up with a lot of examples in the recent HDH invitational that involved microing medium-sized armies (phoenixes ring a bell there, governuh?) but just watching the replays will change your mind on that. Lastly, this is indeed a product test phase. You should know that in test phases, no design takes place. The engine and game content are DONE by the time you get to testing. You are not going to see new units or radical changes in existing ones. Moving shot, as stated multiple times, is a big deal. It needs units to be re-made to compensate for its existence. Then other balance issues will emerge, on top of existing ones. It's a whole avalanche effect, and when the game is in beta no sane game designer is going to apply "kludge until it works" theory. | ||
|
mfukar
Greece41 Posts
On April 29 2010 23:41 Perfect Balance wrote: This threads first post was written by an experienced SC/SC2 player in platinum, supported by all SC2 players in platinum/high gold, and criticised by everyone in mid-gold and below. That says it all, really. SC2 caters to noobs. Oh my God, Generalization Man, you are again wrong! | ||
| ||
