|
On April 30 2010 02:03 LaLuSh wrote:
Yonhap: What's Blizzard's vision for E-sports?
MM (Michael Morhaime): Our understanding of E-sports is as a community project that increases the enjoyment of the game for the players. It's going to be popular not only in Korea, but worldwide.
Of course it could be profitable as well, but we're focusing on the community aspect of E-sports more than the financial aspects. If we turn a profit, we plan to reinvest a large portion of it to development e-sports even further, in the form of sponsorships, prize money, etc.
I'm a real idiot aren't I? I looked it up just to make you look bad. Not exactly what I recalled reading, but I don't really think SCII is one of their cash cow games. If they wanted money they'd make another MMORPG.
Your original post (the one I quoted) was about SC2. Not e-sports about SC2. SC2. StarCraft 2.
So good job. The interview talks about one thing, you understand another. That makes an idiot. I'm not going to respond to anything else that you say, even if I agreed with your point about moving shot.
|
You're list shows exactly why Micro doesn't matter as much in SC2.
Starcraft 1
1. Hit when the Terran is moving his tanks unsieged.
Huge Advantage. Often instant win.
2. Mine-drag with his Zealots.
Huge Advantage
3. Form a good firing arc, doing max damage and taking min damage.
Moderate Advantage
4. Stasis the tanks in the back, so as not to create an invincible wall of tanks the Dragoons have to walk around.
Huge advantage. Often Instant win.
5. Storm the biggest clumps of tanks he can find.
Huge Advantage. Often instant win.
6. Dodge EMPs, particularly with Arbiters and HTs
Moderate Advantage
7. Stasis Vessels with leftover energy to prevent detection.
Huge Advantage. Often instant win.
8. move-shoot his Dragoons, and target-fire tanks when necessary, making sure to minimize overkill.
Moderate Advantage
9. Goons need to always be shooting tanks, and not Vultures/Goliaths/Vessels.
Huge Advantage.
======================================================
Starcraft2
1. Form a good firing arc, doing max damage and taking min damage.
Moderate Advantage
2. Keep GS on his whole army while using as little energy from his Sentries as possible.
This doesn't require micro. Hitting G three times is not micro.
3. Use Forcefield to disrupt the Terran firing arc, and to keep reinforcements back.
Huge Advantage. Often instant win.
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.
Moderate Advantage
5. Immortals need to always be shooting at Marauders, not Ghosts/Marines, because of the bonus damage factor. Again, reduce overkill.
Minor Advantage
6. Sentries need to always be shooting biological targets, due to their bonus damage vs. them.
stfu you don't have any idea what you're talking about advantage.
7. Templar need to be Feedbacking Ghosts as fast as possible.
Huge Advantage
8. Templars need to be Storming M&M clumps.
Incredibly easy to preform. Differences between skill in preforming is minor advantage.
9. The entire army needs to dodge EMPs, especially the Templar.
Not possible to dodge EMP, there instant. Micro is on behalf of terran player only.
10. Medivacs can be feedbacked with remaining templar energy.
Moderate Advantage.
11. Stalkers need to be Blinked as close to the Vikings as possible to target-fire them, and minimize Colossi losses.
This isn't even done. Not would anyone want to, as this would now put your most marauder vulnerable unit in front of your zealots.
In Starcraft 2, their are a grand total of 1 thing I can do that would dramatically change the battle if done right. Only two things give me huge advantages.
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.
Are you kidding me? The -APM required to dance Dragoons alone is equivalent to stalker micro. Let alone zealot dropping and stasis spamming.
Seriously, you display a pretty abysmal knowledge of SC2. You have to understand how things actually work before you can contribute relavently to a debate. fyi nobody blinks their stalkers in front of there zealots into a big ball of marauders, and Sentries don't do bonus damage versus light. Manually targeting Immortals is ridiculously pointless in late game battles. That's from that list alone.
Also, units don't overkill in SC2.
|
On April 30 2010 10:55 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 10:31 buhhy wrote:On April 30 2010 07:52 Zeke50100 wrote:On April 30 2010 07:44 buhhy wrote:On April 30 2010 07:30 Zeke50100 wrote:On April 30 2010 07:18 buhhy wrote:On April 30 2010 06:49 Zeke50100 wrote:
Only living beings can have talent, m'kay? A computer is a simulation of talent and skill, but is not talented nor skillful itself.
Also, you're basically saying talent doesn't mean anything. If you don't understand the word "talent," stop trying to argue.
It's not that playing a game itself is a talent, but rather the abilities required. Get it? The natural ability to process information during situations, the ability to move your fingers in a certain way, the ability to move your arm in a certain way, they are ALL talent. Therefore, by extension, because playing StarCraft requires talent, it is essentially a compiled talent in itself.
The words "Talent" and "Not Innate" are mutually exclusive when the latter is refering to the former. This. Mechanics require hand speed and accuracy as talents, as well as muscle memory. Hand speed and accuracy is what you're born with, muscle memory is trained, hence having good mechanics is a skill. Having good mechanics is neither skill nor talent, but rather a combination of the two. You can't say it's one or the other. Skill doesn't "override" talent, and vice-versa. No, but skill includes talent. Skill is how well you do something. Talent may contribute a small or large amount. Saying I am skilled at drawing does not mean I am a talented artist, while saying I am a talented artist generally indicates that I am skilled. Skill is not how well you do something; at least, not entirely. Skill comprises of your ability to do things you have LEARNED. Talent and skill are different entities. They complement each other, but do not apply to the same things. Generally, talents and skills should not be be grouped together. For example, a choir member is naturally able to sing well. Singing is a talent. Reading music, however, is a skill. When "grouped" together, people generally refer to them as talented musicians, which is actually incorrect. You can't group them together at all ("good musician" would be much better) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skill1. the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well: Carpentry was one of his many skills. 2. competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity: The dancers performed with skill. I think your definition of skill is off. coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etcI think you mis-bolded.
You're right, I did mis-bold.
coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc.
Thus, skill is a combination of knowledge, practice and aptitude (one's innate talent).
Anyways, enough about semantics.
The AI in SC2 is so good that trying to target fire excessively may actually reduce the overall damage output as units struggle to get in range. (someone should test this)
|
On April 30 2010 10:31 buhhy wrote:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skill
1.
the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well: Carpentry was one of his many skills.
2.
competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity: The dancers performed with skill.
I think your definition of skill is off.
Hahaha, self-owned!
|
On April 30 2010 15:06 mfukar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 10:31 buhhy wrote:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skill
1.
the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well: Carpentry was one of his many skills.
2.
competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity: The dancers performed with skill.
I think your definition of skill is off. Hahaha, self-owned!
Bolded the wrong part :/
|
On April 30 2010 13:57 madcow305 wrote:
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
Definitely a false dichotomy. He doesn't really have to admit anything which has absolutely nothing to do with his point, the point of the OP, and the point of the thread, and lording something irrelevant and contrived over him as if it proves anything would be pointless.
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.
And here a strawman. It's easy to argue against a five word title when it was intentionally meant to be sensationalist ("What do you mean SC2 has no micro?! I can cast force fields and blink! There's yer micro"). But what if the OP meant that the micro present in SC2 is a subset of the micro available in BW? Arguing to prove that there is indeed micro in SC2 does nothing to answer the question of why trying to diversify the types of micro in SC2 would be a bad thing. I appreciate the effort that you've put into your posts, but I don't think they're answering the right questions.
|
On April 30 2010 15:20 buhhy wrote:
Bolded the wrong part :/
Well, of course, nobody would bold the part that contradicts their hypothesis!
|
On April 30 2010 15:31 mfukar wrote:Well, of course, nobody would bold the part that contradicts their hypothesis!
Lol... can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not... I was saying that skill includes talent as a factor.
|
On April 30 2010 14:45 buhhy wrote:
The AI in SC2 is so good that trying to target fire excessively may actually reduce the overall damage output as units struggle to get in range. (someone should test this)
No, it just means you should target fire with units in range and even better with a designated, ideal number of units (determined through calculation and testing)
|
This thread got old really quick 
Gonna say what alot of people have said already regarding the Article; well written with some good points, but it's all hidden in spewage and whining which just doenst make a good article.
And generally I disagree, there is plenty of stuff that arises everyday and there will be new things that will arise in the future of micro in this game.
People also over represent the micro needed in SC1. The main reason why the micro in SC1 was cool to watch was because you knew how hard it was to perform EVERYTHING else at the same time - i.e multitasking. Regarding the move and shot, I'd say I also miss it abit and would like to see it in diffrent forms, but I'm not as certain as the OP that whatever happens it's gonna be major fail on blizzards part.
What will be impressive in SC2 is the same thing as in SC1 + smaller trix in the EXTREMLY fast paced battles (Due to larger army clashes), and as soon as people take advantage of the fact that there is alot of mobility in the game and harass effectively on multiple fronts you will see cool stuff. Imho.
|
On April 30 2010 09:45 Xenocide_Knight wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 08:55 carwashguy wrote:
"For a game to be competitive, it has to be difficult."
You can make a game as difficult as you like. If it isn't interesting (having layers of depth), balanced, and fair, it isn't going to be competitive. Technical difficulty should be a necessary evil, not an perk.
Things that add to depth:
Strategic planning - what to open with, knowing how to counter matchups and units, building your economy
Tactical proficiency - the right mix of units when attacking, capitalizing on available abilities, unit x goes here while y falls back
Necessary evils to achieve depth
Going back and forth to different areas constantly in order to keep things running optimally, having to click many times over in order to get units operate just how you need them to
And I saw the argument "well, you seem to want a game where it builds openings for you." This argument fails since there's no way to do that without sacrificing depth--that is, there's so many variations upon variations of openings that to settle on a set amount would restrict depth.
In short, heavy micro and APM intensive maneuvers shouldn't be looked upon as revered skills, but as necessary evils. A game should simplify these things when it doesn't affect depth. Say we could communicate with the computer without ever clicking or pressing a button--you know what needs to happen and it happens: would expert players be any less skillful? No. Games would be exactly the same and just as interesting--only with less RSI problems. =] 100m dash Oh wow it so interesting! So much depth! Layers and layers of strategy and tactics
This made me laugh enough so I had to comment. You actually want to play a COMPUTER GAME that has its biggest reward from PHYSICAL EXERTION? Try Winter Games or whatever they have now which requires you to jerk a joystick left and right in quick succession. Or get a Wii and those fake sports games. You should not expect to have the same requirements for a "mind game" and Starcraft is more mind game than an execution game.
Personally I think the whole word "E-Sport" is a joke. Sports are games which require physical exertion, but no computer game does that. All those Wii-Sports games are a joke too, because they risk injury more than when you are doing real sports, due to unnatural movements when your body is cold. Even chess is not really a "sport" IMO.
Forcing people to "physical exertion" while playing on the computer is a bad idea IMO, because the mouse is a very bad tool. You can get lots of injuries FOR LIFE if you use it badly and especially growing kids would probably hate to never really be able to become computer programmers because they ruined their wrist while playing Starcraft because some "experts" decreed that you need high APM to win. Day[9] has his carpal tunnel syndrome and I think its highly likely that he got it from too much Starcraft APM. My own right hand and arm hurt enough so I cant use a mouse for long and had to switch to a WACOM instead ... I had a slight injury from an unhealthy job to get a head start, but the big hurt came during my time at WoW and as a layouter for books. Now I cant really work in that profession anymore ... So do you really want to increase the number of these illnesses by enforcing APM? How would you feel when your mouse arm hurts so much that you dont want to use a computer anymore?
Explanation: Computer mouse movements are bad for the fingers, because the rapid acceleration and deceleration are unnatural. Obviously not everyone gets injured, but excess increases the risk. Also the somewhat constant pressure on the wrist can cause several vessels inside to work at reduced capacity ... hence cold fingers / hands are common. All the "APM spam" at the beginning is just used to warm up, but not everyone does it and thus injuries are generated.
On April 30 2010 10:50 Xenocide_Knight wrote:
Taking out APM doesn't make strategy more important, it just lowers the overall skill ceiling to the point where anyone can play at a pro-level.
And that is bad, because ... ? I dont think the skill ceiling is lowered, but rather shifted to a different focus.
|
On April 30 2010 14:41 Half wrote:You're list shows exactly why Micro doesn't matter as much in SC2. Starcraft 1 Huge Advantage. Often instant win. Huge Advantage Moderate Advantage Show nested quote +
4. Stasis the tanks in the back, so as not to create an invincible wall of tanks the Dragoons have to walk around.
Huge advantage. Often Instant win. Huge Advantage. Often instant win. Moderate Advantage Huge Advantage. Often instant win. Show nested quote +
8. move-shoot his Dragoons, and target-fire tanks when necessary, making sure to minimize overkill.
Moderate Advantage Show nested quote +
9. Goons need to always be shooting tanks, and not Vultures/Goliaths/Vessels.
Huge Advantage. ====================================================== Starcraft2 Moderate Advantage Show nested quote +
2. Keep GS on his whole army while using as little energy from his Sentries as possible.
This doesn't require micro. Hitting G three times is not micro. Show nested quote +
3. Use Forcefield to disrupt the Terran firing arc, and to keep reinforcements back.
Huge Advantage. Often instant win. Show nested quote +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. Moderate Advantage Show nested quote +
5. Immortals need to always be shooting at Marauders, not Ghosts/Marines, because of the bonus damage factor. Again, reduce overkill.
Minor Advantage Show nested quote +
6. Sentries need to always be shooting biological targets, due to their bonus damage vs. them.
stfu you don't have any idea what you're talking about advantage. Huge Advantage Incredibly easy to preform. Differences between skill in preforming is minor advantage. Not possible to dodge EMP, there instant. Micro is on behalf of terran player only. Moderate Advantage. Show nested quote +
11. Stalkers need to be Blinked as close to the Vikings as possible to target-fire them, and minimize Colossi losses.
This isn't even done. Not would anyone want to, as this would now put your most marauder vulnerable unit in front of your zealots. In Starcraft 2, their are a grand total of 1 thing I can do that would dramatically change the battle if done right. Only two things give me huge advantages. Show nested quote +
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.
Are you kidding me? The -APM required to dance Dragoons alone is equivalent to stalker micro. Let alone zealot dropping and stasis spamming. Seriously, you display a pretty abysmal knowledge of SC2. You have to understand how things actually work before you can contribute relavently to a debate. fyi nobody blinks their stalkers in front of there zealots into a big ball of marauders, and Sentries don't do bonus damage versus light. Manually targeting Immortals is ridiculously pointless in late game battles. That's from that list alone. Also, units don't overkill in SC2.
Sentries gain a bonus vs. Biological targets. Marines, Marauders, and Ghosts are Biological. Medivacs and Vikings are not. Thanks for showing you're in such a rush to post your own opinions about how good an advantage something is that you can't even properly read what I posted.
Oh, and covering your army with GS isn't as simple as hitting it three times. Maybe the three Sentries that trigger GS are all on one side of your army, meaning the side that you're flanking with has no GS to cover it. Or, maybe those three Sentries are bunched up on the right flank of your troops, and your left flank is exposed.
Or, for the easiest example, maybe your Zealots Charge in faster than your Sentries can keep up, so you have to micro a few and move them closer to the Zealots before they charge in, so they can always be under GS. Your narrow-minded thinking about SC2 Micro is really showing here, with this GS example. There are plenty of times where hitting G x3 isn't enough.
And yes, it is possible to dodge EMP, depending on your army positioning. If you spread your Immortals out far enough that it takes 4 EMPs to hit them all, and the Terran only has 4 Ghosts, then he only has a few EMPs left to hit your HT with. If you Feedback 2 more of them, then he has even less. Then, if you spread your HT out, one EMP can't get all of them. Hence, you just "dodged" most of the EMPs coming from 4 Ghosts.
HT Micro also comes into play, in that you don't want to move your HT too close to the Ghosts. Dance forward, Feedback/Storm, and dance back, just like Arbiters did in SC1 to Stasis back rows of tanks, then move away from Goliath/EMPs. EMP was near-instant in SC1 too, the missile traveled relatively fast compared to the movement speed of the Arbiter. Of course, most of the time Progamers didn't bother saving their Arbiters, since an Arbiter with no energy from using Stasis wasn't worth the APM it took to save it. However, that doesn't mean it's not something you shouldn't do now in SC2, since it requires less APM to play.
Stalkers can be Blinked into shooting range to kill Vikings, yet still be behind the Zealot line. Just because you've never done it, doesn't mean it can't be done. Besides, Marauders have the same range as Stalkers. Whether they Blink closer or not has no bearing on whether the Marauders can hit them; Marauders will always be able to shoot Stalkers if the Stalker can shoot the Marauder.
Certain SC2 units overkill. Units that have a travel-time on their attacks, for example. Colossi and Banshees are the ones I can name off the top of my head. Marauders, Stalkers, and Hydralisks, Vikings, BCs, etc might overkill as well.
You could have tested this by simply playing an AI game, taking 3 Colossi, marching to your opponent's base, and seeing if all 3 fired at once when ordered to kill a worker. Instead, you spout off blatantly incorrect facts, like "SC2 units don't overkill!".
Spout all the "OMGZ U DON'T KNOW ABOUT SC2" drivel that you want. At least I don't state blatant, disprovable falsities.
On April 30 2010 15:31 Bwenjarin Raffrack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 13:57 madcow305 wrote:
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 Definitely a false dichotomy. He doesn't really have to admit anything which has absolutely nothing to do with his point, the point of the OP, and the point of the thread, and lording something irrelevant and contrived over him as if it proves anything would be pointless. Show nested quote +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.
And here a strawman. It's easy to argue against a five word title when it was intentionally meant to be sensationalist ("What do you mean SC2 has no micro?! I can cast force fields and blink! There's yer micro"). But what if the OP meant that the micro present in SC2 is a subset of the micro available in BW? Arguing to prove that there is indeed micro in SC2 does nothing to answer the question of why trying to diversify the types of micro in SC2 would be a bad thing. I appreciate the effort that you've put into your posts, but I don't think they're answering the right questions.
The guy made a claim: that early game PvT timing attacks in SC1 had way more micro involved than the same timing attacks in SC2. I asked him to name some timing attacks that fit this profile, because I already gave the Bulldog example. Instead of taking the example I gave of two PvT timing attacks by Protoss from SC1 and SC2 and proving my points wrong, the guy goes off on a tangent about lategame PvT, without addressing my point. Hence why I asked him to admit that my point about early-game PvT in SC2 being more micro-intensive than SC1 is correct, before I go on to debate lategame PvT with him.
It may not have anything to do with the OP, but neither does the argument about the definition of skill that's been going on for the past two pages. Why aren't you yelling at those people?
The OP didn't argue that micro in SC2 is a subset of micro in SC1. He simply lamented the non-existence of Move-Shoot, and blamed Dustin Browder for it.
And I've already stated the answer to everyone's question about SC2 micro earlier: the nostalgic micro tricks we adore from SC1 were products of the game engine's bugs.
Was Move-Shoot described in the SC1 manual? Nope. They told you how to build buildings, how to collect minerals, how to make units, but they didn't explain Move-Shoot, or Muta stacking, or Hold Lurker. Why? Because the game designers never planned for it to be a part of the game. It was a random product of the game engine's coding.
Why is this relevant to SC2? Well, let me ask, how long did it take people to discover and streamline Move-Shoot? A year or two after BW was released? What about Muta Stacking? Mid 2004? I'm not clear on the exact dates, but the point is, these Micro tricks we're all up in arms about weren't even discovered until years after the game was released. The reason for such a late discovery was because people had to fiddle around doing random bullshit with units for years to discover SC:BW's game engine quirks. And yes, it really was random bullshit. Who would ever think to group a bunch of Mutas with an Overlord?
So, we've had Beta for a month or two. Can we stop lamenting the lack of game engine quirks that took years for people in SC:BW to figure out?
Like I said in one of my previous posts, maybe in SC2, if you group your Hellions with an Ebay, they gain the ability to animation cancel and move-shoot like Vultures in SC1. Who the fuk knows?
|
Perhaps Blizzard intended on SC2 micro being more focused on things like positioning and brainwork rather than just a gigantic APM check?
A lot of really good BW players have this notion that because BW is what they believe to be the best game ever, everything that is different from BW is inherently bad. Don't hate it because it's different. Use you brain to make fights go your way, don't count on your 300 APM like you used to be able to do.
Even implying that 300 APM is what makes a good game exposes the elitist attitude of the OP. Keep an open mind to the new game, people are even still figuring things out. It hasn't been out for 10+ years like BW, we don't know all the details yet. How about we try a game that instead of focusing on how fast a player can click, focuses on the actual gameplay? There is actually a pretty substantial amount of micro to be found in SC2, and honestly if you're so hurt in your heart about there being a "micro decrease" from BW, try War3. If micro is your thing, you might want to switch games.
|
Micro is something that becomes more important as the meta-game becomes more stable. Right now too many games are still basically being decided by BO wins, and this is very apparent when you watch tourneys, where having the wrong unit composition at the wrong time leads to essentially one-sided attack-move battles (with some force fields & emps here and there), or virtually unstoppable harass.
Once people figure out "safe" builds and we settle into a familiar pattern with each match-up, then the little micro tricks will become more significant as players attempt to edge out that ounce of extra advantage. I'd give the game at least that long before making a judgment as to whether its level of micro is adequate.
|
People seem to enjoy throwing around the notion of "300APM e.t.c" like it is just mindless spam and that it is in no way linked to intelligence or complexity within the game, get this into your head, starcraft required such a high APM for the top players because there were so many opportunities to maxamise your efficiency both in the micromanagement of your units in battle and in production. To do this effectively takes experience, intelligence, practice, prescision and typically as you got better at starcraft1 you found your apm increased as well. Or to rephrase as your knowledge and experience of the game and what was neccesary to perform better increased so did your apm.
|
On April 30 2010 16:31 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 09:45 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 30 2010 08:55 carwashguy wrote:
"For a game to be competitive, it has to be difficult."
You can make a game as difficult as you like. If it isn't interesting (having layers of depth), balanced, and fair, it isn't going to be competitive. Technical difficulty should be a necessary evil, not an perk.
Things that add to depth:
Strategic planning - what to open with, knowing how to counter matchups and units, building your economy
Tactical proficiency - the right mix of units when attacking, capitalizing on available abilities, unit x goes here while y falls back
Necessary evils to achieve depth
Going back and forth to different areas constantly in order to keep things running optimally, having to click many times over in order to get units operate just how you need them to
And I saw the argument "well, you seem to want a game where it builds openings for you." This argument fails since there's no way to do that without sacrificing depth--that is, there's so many variations upon variations of openings that to settle on a set amount would restrict depth.
In short, heavy micro and APM intensive maneuvers shouldn't be looked upon as revered skills, but as necessary evils. A game should simplify these things when it doesn't affect depth. Say we could communicate with the computer without ever clicking or pressing a button--you know what needs to happen and it happens: would expert players be any less skillful? No. Games would be exactly the same and just as interesting--only with less RSI problems. =] 100m dash Oh wow it so interesting! So much depth! Layers and layers of strategy and tactics This made me laugh enough so I had to comment. You actually want to play a COMPUTER GAME that has its biggest reward from PHYSICAL EXERTION? Try Winter Games or whatever they have now which requires you to jerk a joystick left and right in quick succession. Or get a Wii and those fake sports games. You should not expect to have the same requirements for a "mind game" and Starcraft is more mind game than an execution game. Personally I think the whole word "E-Sport" is a joke. Sports are games which require physical exertion, but no computer game does that. All those Wii-Sports games are a joke too, because they risk injury more than when you are doing real sports, due to unnatural movements when your body is cold. Even chess is not really a "sport" IMO. Forcing people to "physical exertion" while playing on the computer is a bad idea IMO, because the mouse is a very bad tool. You can get lots of injuries FOR LIFE if you use it badly and especially growing kids would probably hate to never really be able to become computer programmers because they ruined their wrist while playing Starcraft because some "experts" decreed that you need high APM to win. Day[9] has his carpal tunnel syndrome and I think its highly likely that he got it from too much Starcraft APM. My own right hand and arm hurt enough so I cant use a mouse for long and had to switch to a WACOM instead ... I had a slight injury from an unhealthy job to get a head start, but the big hurt came during my time at WoW and as a layouter for books. Now I cant really work in that profession anymore ... So do you really want to increase the number of these illnesses by enforcing APM? How would you feel when your mouse arm hurts so much that you dont want to use a computer anymore? Explanation: Computer mouse movements are bad for the fingers, because the rapid acceleration and deceleration are unnatural. Obviously not everyone gets injured, but excess increases the risk. Also the somewhat constant pressure on the wrist can cause several vessels inside to work at reduced capacity ... hence cold fingers / hands are common. All the "APM spam" at the beginning is just used to warm up, but not everyone does it and thus injuries are generated. Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 10:50 Xenocide_Knight wrote:
Taking out APM doesn't make strategy more important, it just lowers the overall skill ceiling to the point where anyone can play at a pro-level. And that is bad, because ... ? I dont think the skill ceiling is lowered, but rather shifted to a different focus.
There's so much bullshit in your post, I just bolded 2 examples of it.
First of all, there's no computer game requiring physical exertion? Exertion of mind affects your physique and if you would've ever watched a SC:BW progame or let alone played that game instead of being some C&C guy coming over here and spitting on what we love, you sir, would know this is not true at all. SC:BW made me sweat hundreds of times, my fingers tremble thousands of times and boggled my mind every fucking game I played. Guess what, I never made money with SC:BW, I was just some dude playing in BWCL-2 aka semi-good amateur level (C+ if that's telling you more).
Your second statement, wtf? Guess what happens to any other professional competing in any other sports. Some boxers end up with getting Parkinson soon after their career ends, some don't. Some football players end up walking like Goofy for the rest of their lifes. Your hand hurts from playing WoW? How do you expect to get taken seriously on this very board?
Hint
+ Show Spoiler +This site isn't a major SC2 fanpage, even though you might've thought so when you've stumbled across it. This is and has always been about competitive gaming and just because mods tell us to be nice to you new guys, doesn't mean we actually like you or even support your opinion. Our goal is to make SC2 as potentially competitive as its predecessor was and nothing less. You probably will quit SC2 soon after its release anyway, because after you've collected all your cool achievements, you'll go back farming in WoW. That's all fine, no flame intended, people are different. You like to collect stuff, we like to compete and play at our limits.
|
This thread delivers ! The heated debate shows how much ppl are involved in the beta and SC2 generally, no matter their opinion. Contradiction is evolution. Keep going.
|
On April 30 2010 17:10 madcow305 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 14:41 Half wrote:You're list shows exactly why Micro doesn't matter as much in SC2. Starcraft 1 1. Hit when the Terran is moving his tanks unsieged. Huge Advantage. Often instant win. 2. Mine-drag with his Zealots. Huge Advantage 3. Form a good firing arc, doing max damage and taking min damage. Moderate Advantage
4. Stasis the tanks in the back, so as not to create an invincible wall of tanks the Dragoons have to walk around.
Huge advantage. Often Instant win.
5. Storm the biggest clumps of tanks he can find.
Huge Advantage. Often instant win.
6. Dodge EMPs, particularly with Arbiters and HTs
Moderate Advantage
7. Stasis Vessels with leftover energy to prevent detection.
Huge Advantage. Often instant win.
8. move-shoot his Dragoons, and target-fire tanks when necessary, making sure to minimize overkill.
Moderate Advantage
9. Goons need to always be shooting tanks, and not Vultures/Goliaths/Vessels.
Huge Advantage. ====================================================== Starcraft2
1. Form a good firing arc, doing max damage and taking min damage.
Moderate Advantage
2. Keep GS on his whole army while using as little energy from his Sentries as possible.
This doesn't require micro. Hitting G three times is not micro.
3. Use Forcefield to disrupt the Terran firing arc, and to keep reinforcements back.
Huge Advantage. Often instant win. 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. Moderate Advantage
5. Immortals need to always be shooting at Marauders, not Ghosts/Marines, because of the bonus damage factor. Again, reduce overkill.
Minor Advantage
6. Sentries need to always be shooting biological targets, due to their bonus damage vs. them.
stfu you don't have any idea what you're talking about advantage.
7. Templar need to be Feedbacking Ghosts as fast as possible.
Huge Advantage
8. Templars need to be Storming M&M clumps.
Incredibly easy to preform. Differences between skill in preforming is minor advantage.
9. The entire army needs to dodge EMPs, especially the Templar.
Not possible to dodge EMP, there instant. Micro is on behalf of terran player only.
10. Medivacs can be feedbacked with remaining templar energy.
Moderate Advantage.
11. Stalkers need to be Blinked as close to the Vikings as possible to target-fire them, and minimize Colossi losses.
This isn't even done. Not would anyone want to, as this would now put your most marauder vulnerable unit in front of your zealots. In Starcraft 2, their are a grand total of 1 thing I can do that would dramatically change the battle if done right. Only two things give me huge advantages.
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.
Are you kidding me? The -APM required to dance Dragoons alone is equivalent to stalker micro. Let alone zealot dropping and stasis spamming. Seriously, you display a pretty abysmal knowledge of SC2. You have to understand how things actually work before you can contribute relavently to a debate. fyi nobody blinks their stalkers in front of there zealots into a big ball of marauders, and Sentries don't do bonus damage versus light. Manually targeting Immortals is ridiculously pointless in late game battles. That's from that list alone. Also, units don't overkill in SC2. Sentries gain a bonus vs. Biological targets. Marines, Marauders, and Ghosts are Biological. Medivacs and Vikings are not. Thanks for showing you're in such a rush to post your own opinions about how good an advantage something is that you can't even properly read what I posted. Oh, and covering your army with GS isn't as simple as hitting it three times. Maybe the three Sentries that trigger GS are all on one side of your army, meaning the side that you're flanking with has no GS to cover it. Or, maybe those three Sentries are bunched up on the right flank of your troops, and your left flank is exposed. Or, for the easiest example, maybe your Zealots Charge in faster than your Sentries can keep up, so you have to micro a few and move them closer to the Zealots before they charge in, so they can always be under GS. Your narrow-minded thinking about SC2 Micro is really showing here, with this GS example. There are plenty of times where hitting G x3 isn't enough. And yes, it is possible to dodge EMP, depending on your army positioning. If you spread your Immortals out far enough that it takes 4 EMPs to hit them all, and the Terran only has 4 Ghosts, then he only has a few EMPs left to hit your HT with. If you Feedback 2 more of them, then he has even less. Then, if you spread your HT out, one EMP can't get all of them. Hence, you just "dodged" most of the EMPs coming from 4 Ghosts. HT Micro also comes into play, in that you don't want to move your HT too close to the Ghosts. Dance forward, Feedback/Storm, and dance back, just like Arbiters did in SC1 to Stasis back rows of tanks, then move away from Goliath/EMPs. EMP was near-instant in SC1 too, the missile traveled relatively fast compared to the movement speed of the Arbiter. Of course, most of the time Progamers didn't bother saving their Arbiters, since an Arbiter with no energy from using Stasis wasn't worth the APM it took to save it. However, that doesn't mean it's not something you shouldn't do now in SC2, since it requires less APM to play. Stalkers can be Blinked into shooting range to kill Vikings, yet still be behind the Zealot line. Just because you've never done it, doesn't mean it can't be done. Besides, Marauders have the same range as Stalkers. Whether they Blink closer or not has no bearing on whether the Marauders can hit them; Marauders will always be able to shoot Stalkers if the Stalker can shoot the Marauder. Certain SC2 units overkill. Units that have a travel-time on their attacks, for example. Colossi and Banshees are the ones I can name off the top of my head. Marauders, Stalkers, and Hydralisks, Vikings, BCs, etc might overkill as well. You could have tested this by simply playing an AI game, taking 3 Colossi, marching to your opponent's base, and seeing if all 3 fired at once when ordered to kill a worker. Instead, you spout off blatantly incorrect facts, like "SC2 units don't overkill!". Spout all the "OMGZ U DON'T KNOW ABOUT SC2" drivel that you want. At least I don't state blatant, disprovable falsities. Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 15:31 Bwenjarin Raffrack wrote:On April 30 2010 13:57 madcow305 wrote:
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 Definitely a false dichotomy. He doesn't really have to admit anything which has absolutely nothing to do with his point, the point of the OP, and the point of the thread, and lording something irrelevant and contrived over him as if it proves anything would be pointless. 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.
And here a strawman. It's easy to argue against a five word title when it was intentionally meant to be sensationalist ("What do you mean SC2 has no micro?! I can cast force fields and blink! There's yer micro"). But what if the OP meant that the micro present in SC2 is a subset of the micro available in BW? Arguing to prove that there is indeed micro in SC2 does nothing to answer the question of why trying to diversify the types of micro in SC2 would be a bad thing. I appreciate the effort that you've put into your posts, but I don't think they're answering the right questions. The guy made a claim: that early game PvT timing attacks in SC1 had way more micro involved than the same timing attacks in SC2. I asked him to name some timing attacks that fit this profile, because I already gave the Bulldog example. Instead of taking the example I gave of two PvT timing attacks by Protoss from SC1 and SC2 and proving my points wrong, the guy goes off on a tangent about lategame PvT, without addressing my point. Hence why I asked him to admit that my point about early-game PvT in SC2 being more micro-intensive than SC1 is correct, before I go on to debate lategame PvT with him. It may not have anything to do with the OP, but neither does the argument about the definition of skill that's been going on for the past two pages. Why aren't you yelling at those people? The OP didn't argue that micro in SC2 is a subset of micro in SC1. He simply lamented the non-existence of Move-Shoot, and blamed Dustin Browder for it. And I've already stated the answer to everyone's question about SC2 micro earlier: the nostalgic micro tricks we adore from SC1 were products of the game engine's bugs. Was Move-Shoot described in the SC1 manual? Nope. They told you how to build buildings, how to collect minerals, how to make units, but they didn't explain Move-Shoot, or Muta stacking, or Hold Lurker. Why? Because the game designers never planned for it to be a part of the game. It was a random product of the game engine's coding. Why is this relevant to SC2? Well, let me ask, how long did it take people to discover and streamline Move-Shoot? A year or two after BW was released? What about Muta Stacking? Mid 2004? I'm not clear on the exact dates, but the point is, these Micro tricks we're all up in arms about weren't even discovered until years after the game was released. The reason for such a late discovery was because people had to fiddle around doing random bullshit with units for years to discover SC:BW's game engine quirks. And yes, it really was random bullshit. Who would ever think to group a bunch of Mutas with an Overlord? So, we've had Beta for a month or two. Can we stop lamenting the lack of game engine quirks that took years for people in SC:BW to figure out? Like I said in one of my previous posts, maybe in SC2, if you group your Hellions with an Ebay, they gain the ability to animation cancel and move-shoot like Vultures in SC1. Who the fuk knows?
Your last questions have already been answered, stop repeating them. Before BW, we weren't looking for the kind of micro that it introduced. Now we are because we have seen what people can do in BW.
Blizzard should have watched and learned from BW, not been like "oops, it seems that the unintentional glithces in BW made for a flourishing and interresting pro-scene. Oh well, they were unintentional, so I guess we have to remove them in the sequel anyway"
People have been looking for interresting micro, and none have been found. People's concerns are justified.
Your bulldog argument is invalid because Bulldog is a cheese and a warpgate/robo push is not. You said that the protoss had collossi that he had to micro against the terran, so why on earth would you compare a build that has collossi and immortals to an all in early game cheese like bulldog?
At least compare it to an SCBW scenario where the toss also has a midgame army, geez. A protoss that has taken his third and is defending from a terran timing push would be a more fair comparison.
Also, you coming up with all the stuff that the toss has to do doesn't really prove anything either since it doesn't take into account how hard each individual micro is to do. You mostly described target firing and positioning sentries and using abilities. while in SC1 there are dozens of other aspects other than what units targets what. Protoss push breaking micro for example is a scinece all by itself. getting a good flank is not enough, you have to move your zealots the right way, if there are well-placed mines you have to make sure that a few zealots charges in to clear them. You may or may not have a reaver in a shuttle left from something you did earlier, and the theory for getting the max out of shuttle/reaver against terran alone is ridiculously complex. There are many little things like that that you forgot to mention.
|
On April 30 2010 17:28 XeliN wrote:
People seem to enjoy throwing around the notion of "300APM e.t.c" like it is just mindless spam and that it is in no way linked to intelligence or complexity within the game, get this into your head, starcraft required such a high APM for the top players because there were so many opportunities to maxamise your efficiency both in the micromanagement of your units in battle and in production. To do this effectively takes experience, intelligence, practice, prescision and typically as you got better at starcraft1 you found your apm increased as well. Or to rephrase as your knowledge and experience of the game and what was neccesary to perform better increased so did your apm.
Well you know there's 2 kind of APM : efficient and not. Flash needs that 300ish APM to execute his strategies, a C- guy on ICCUP does not, he does it for the show because he is a wannabe progamer. So yes, APM is not necessarily linked to intelligence or complexity within the game.
On a sidenote I think ppl mix 2 things that have little in common when it comes to BW micro : fighting the poor AI and using the finesse of the engine to your advantage.
Scarab bug, building selecting and retarded goons are just fighting the poor AI and it requires skill but pretty dumb skill, the same you need to perform tedious actions in a repetitive but perfect way.
Muta stack, gliding shots, lurker dodging, mine hopping, dropship tricks is real skill ( they combine dexterity with intelligence) : they are techniques that you use in particular situations and that had to be discovered and thought about.
That's why I'm totally for MBS and a globally better AI AND also concerned about what Lalush pointed out (even if his thread is a bit of a rant).
|
Gotta admire all the hard work put into this article, good job.
Nevertheless, it just has the feeling that says: "We want SC2 to be SC1 with better graphics!" and I hardly think that was Blizzard's idea when they started developing SC2.
SC2 is and always will be different from SC1. That's a fact we all know, but apparently not all of us are willing to fully accept. All that bug-abusing micro, gimmicks, 300+ APM and tactics are what SC1 is all about. SC2 will have other aspects that players need to learn in order to become truly great, and I'm sure it's something else that SC1 had. If it means you can't kill 8 mutalisks with 4 corsairs, then so be it. Adapt.
People should be focusing on what SC2 really is, instead of desperately trying to mold it into their wet dream of SC2 before the beta was ever released (which typically is just "SC1 with better graphics!").
It's Blizzard's game, not your baby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
