| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Asunder
United States15 Posts
On June 03 2010 03:29 mOnion wrote: and another terrible player moves up in the ranks due to Blizzard's pathetic blessing. Fantastic. this is like the saddest thing ever. This makes him a terrible player how? Mouse clicking isn't the only thing in Starcraft, I hope you know. | ||
|
510Sushi
Azerbaijan331 Posts
im still gunna split. but only for looks | ||
|
Goobahfish
Australia71 Posts
On June 03 2010 23:44 Misrah wrote: Then go play chess kid. If you don't like the idea of having fast hands- then just get a computer to do everything for you. Why should you have to build your workers, and click your buildings. Such meaningless tasks. I mean a strategic mind should not have to waste time clicking on buildings and building units, when you could be making a strategical plan. Why do i need to split my miners- i need to be doing something strategic in the first few seconds of game play. Why must i tell my units to move or attack, hold or patrol. I need to be thinking about strategy, units should be smart enough to figure this stuff on their own. I have strategy to think about. Your the type of person that is sucking all of the substance from this game. You haven't answered my question. Just given me rhetoric. Please refrain from meaningless posts in future. I contend that worker splitting doesn't add any substance to the game as it isn't a tactical decision and is not necessary either. Clicking on buildings doesn't add to strategy but is about a simple an interface as can be developed to execute a strategy and thus is necessary to the game. The original poster didn't conduct his experiment correctly and the rest of the 'debate' if that is what this is called has been sensible people saying, "well one less thing to worry about" and purists claiming the armageddon is coming... | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On June 03 2010 23:22 Goobahfish wrote: Well, I personally hope it doesn't make a difference. What a retarded way to distinguish skill in a strategy game. It's like chess being decided by who can set up the pieces faster... . Dude, you can totally tell that the person who sets up their pieces faster in chess is way more skilled... | ||
|
Buddhist
United States658 Posts
On June 04 2010 11:16 Goobahfish wrote: Controlling your units and buildings properly is part of the "substance" of the game. He actually made a completely logical argument which refutes your argument, which is "go play chess". IE. Chess is 100% strategy and tactics. SC2 is not. SC2 is, in a huge part, repetitive tasks, APM, and hand eye coordination. The reason that it SHOULD be that way is because, when you have to focus on doing all of these "menial pointless tasks", you have less time to concentrate on strategy and tactic. Anyone can come up with powerful strategies in SC2, but to actually execute it while doing everything else is something only the best players can do, because only the best players have that much speed and ability to multitask.You haven't answered my question. Just given me rhetoric. Please refrain from meaningless posts in future. I contend that worker splitting doesn't add any substance to the game as it isn't a tactical decision and is not necessary either. Clicking on buildings doesn't add to strategy but is about a simple an interface as can be developed to execute a strategy and thus is necessary to the game. The original poster didn't conduct his experiment correctly and the rest of the 'debate' if that is what this is called has been sensible people saying, "well one less thing to worry about" and purists claiming the armageddon is coming... A great parallel to splitting (in BW, since it actually matters there) is how you send your units to battle. You can just a-move all of your units, because you think unit control doesn't matter, and all that matters is strategy, but you'll be far more effective if you actually send individual units to individual locations for a better surround, and do things like scoot 'n' shooting. That's exactly the same as, instead of just right click on a mineral patch, telling individual gatherers to go to individual mineral patches for greater effectiveness. So saying that splitting your workers is meaningless makes as much sense as saying that controlling your units in battle is meaningless. Neither is "necessary", but both require skill, speed, coordination, multitasking, and increase your success in the game. So really, go play chess if you just want strategy and tactic. Seriously, you should. SC2 is a test of strategy, tactic, speed, coordination, multitasking, and high speed decision making. Only the first two are relevant to chess, and it's only the first two that you seem to care about. Like I said in the OP, I don't think splitting is something that necessarily should be important in SC2, but your arguments (and other people's) are illogical. | ||
|
Goobahfish
Australia71 Posts
So saying that splitting your workers is meaningless makes as much sense as saying that controlling your units in battle is meaningless. Neither is "necessary", but both require skill, speed, coordination, multitasking, and increase your success in the game. That is a silly argument. Just because two things have the same effort, does not mean they have the same consequence. It's a false logical progression. Please argue better. Moving individual units to gain tactical advantage I approve of. The way you position them represents tactical or strategic advantage. Doing this requires both skill and thought. There is a player decision involved. Building workers, queuing units, repositioning, activating abilities. Again, all are player decisions. Splitting workers gives you a numerical advantage, but not a strategic one. It is something which should roughly be the same every game and requires a lot of effort but no thought. There is not player decision involved, you have to do it or theoretically fall behind. It's just another arbitrary button-pressing exercise which represents a hurdle for new players. So why have it? If you want something to distract players from actually playing the game, why not remove all the hotkeys? It would up the 'hand-eye-coordination' but wouldn't add depth either. Why not make harvest a non-auto-cast spell. Each time a player wants 5 minerals they have to click for it. Again effort for no added depth. Worker splitting has effort but no depth. To argue otherwise you would need to prove there was a meaningful player 'decision' involved. If you want to spam buttons and call it skill, go play "Dance Dance Revolution" ^_^ | ||
|
ZenDeX
Philippines2916 Posts
| ||
|
Buddhist
United States658 Posts
On June 04 2010 23:52 Goobahfish wrote: That is a silly argument. Just because two things have the same effort, does not mean they have the same consequence. It's a false logical progression. Please argue better. Moving individual units to gain tactical advantage I approve of. The way you position them represents tactical or strategic advantage. Doing this requires both skill and thought. There is a player decision involved. Building workers, queuing units, repositioning, activating abilities. Again, all are player decisions. Splitting workers gives you a numerical advantage, but not a strategic one. It is something which should roughly be the same every game and requires a lot of effort but no thought. There is not player decision involved, you have to do it or theoretically fall behind. It's just another arbitrary button-pressing exercise which represents a hurdle for new players. So why have it? If you want something to distract players from actually playing the game, why not remove all the hotkeys? It would up the 'hand-eye-coordination' but wouldn't add depth either. Why not make harvest a non-auto-cast spell. Each time a player wants 5 minerals they have to click for it. Again effort for no added depth. Worker splitting has effort but no depth. To argue otherwise you would need to prove there was a meaningful player 'decision' involved. If you want to spam buttons and call it skill, go play "Dance Dance Revolution" ^_^ "Just because two things have the same effort, does not mean they have the same consequence. It's a false logical progression. Please argue better." No one made this argument. I'm sorry if your reading comprehension is poor, but the argument was that, because two things have the same effort, they SHOULD have similar consequences. The argument was never that they DO have similar consequences. In fact, I'm the one who made this thread, and the one who gave data that showed that they DON'T have similar consequences. "you would need to prove there was a meaningful player 'decision' involved" The decision is how to split, obviously. Also, which minerals to send the workers to. Yes, that's a decision that you have to make in real time at the start of the game. Essentially, you're arbitrarily distinguishing between a part of the game you don't like and a part of the game you do like, even though they are extremely similar in concept. "If you want to spam buttons and call it skill, go play "Dance Dance Revolution"" is a ridiculous statement, because I do want strategy and tactics AND speed, coordination, multitasking, and high speed decision making. DDR undeniably does take skill, it just has no strategy or tactic. Again, SC2 has all of these skill requirements, whether you like it or not. You're the one who's arguing that speed and coordination shouldn't matter in SC2, I never said strategy and tactic shouldn't. I said they all should. I assumed you just have poor reading comprehension, and that's what lead to you misunderstanding all of my arguments, but you might have just been intellectually dishonest, and if that's the case, stop wasting our time, you aren't going to prove anything. Again, I don't think splitting specifically is something that should be necessary in SC2, but your arguments are illogical. | ||
|
gotlucky
United States60 Posts
Building workers, queuing units, repositioning, activating abilities. It goes without saying he meant this at the same time, which would imply skill.All he is saying is that the interface should not make menial tasks difficult. I suppose sc2 is similar to speed chess. Not only do you have to be intimately familiar with all of the pieces and strategies, you also have to be able to make decisions quickly. I would like to point out that there have been improvements in sports and music, such as the baseball glove (took a while to catch on) or if you want a music example, electric guitars and keyboards, or even carbon fiber string instruments (Yo-Yo Ma owns one). These are improvements that were meant to make things easier for athletes or musicians. You don't see these people claiming that it will "ruin the substance" of their profession. Likewise, interface improvements should not be held with such disdain. | ||
|
Buddhist
United States658 Posts
On June 05 2010 05:59 gotlucky wrote: He never said that speed and coordination weren't necessary. He even said one should know how to It goes without saying he meant this at the same time, which would imply skill. All he is saying is that the interface should not make menial tasks difficult. I suppose sc2 is similar to speed chess. Not only do you have to be intimately familiar with all of the pieces and strategies, you also have to be able to make decisions quickly. I would like to point out that there have been improvements in sports and music, such as the baseball glove (took a while to catch on) or if you want a music example, electric guitars and keyboards, or even carbon fiber string instruments (Yo-Yo Ma owns one). These are improvements that were meant to make things easier for athletes or musicians. You don't see these people claiming that it will "ruin the substance" of their profession. Likewise, interface improvements should not be held with such disdain. Why should we have to focus fire the lower HP enemy units? It has no depth. You just right click the one with lower HP. Clearly the interface should get an upgrade so that units automatically focus fire lower HP enemies. Just like the interface automatically splits workers as efficiently as possible. Again, I don't care about worker splitting, but your argument is invalid. You say that speed, coordination, and decision making should exist, but arbitrarily not for the worker split. Why not for the worker split? You guys haven't given a single reason yet. Seriously, like I said in the OP, I didn't make the thread to discuss whether or not it's a good thing (that splitting makes no difference in SC2), but your arguments simply make no sense. To split correctly in SC1, you A) have to make a decision, B) have to be highly coordinated, and C) be very fast, and the reward is a marginally higher income. If you were using your argument to say that MBS is a good thing, I would agree. Nothing is added to the game by being forced to select each building independently. If you were using your argument to say that auto-mining is a good thing, I wouldn't disagree. Obviously there is multitasking and APM difficulty added, when you have to tell each worker to mine, but that really is a thoughtless task. Splitting workers, however, is a decision and skill based activity, which, logically following other things like it (focus firing for example), should have some impact on the game. Just personally, I don't care about splitting (because it's such a small part of the game). | ||
|
gotlucky
United States60 Posts
Worker split does not involve that kind of thinking. There is no either/or. There is no should I blink with my stalkers to be able to target an enemy tank, or should I attack move so that I can focus on building up another army. Or whatever strategic or tactical decision you could be making. With worker split, there is no either/or. I know, it either benefits you or doesn't, but there is no opposing decision to make. Also, I would never be in favor of workers being automatically sent at the very beginning of the game because there is another decision that can be made. You could decide to cheese and want to send a worker out immediately. You could decide that you want to load your command center with workers and launch to and island. Sure, they may be not be good decisions, (well at least with that terran example), but they are decisions. We have given reasons, and that reason is the strategic reason. If worker splitting is something that everyone has to do in order to succeed, then why not automate it? There is attack priority in this game because you can't micro everything. And if you want to let your units auto attack while you focus on something else, that is your strategic decision to make. You also might decide that it would be in your favor to forgo macro or another battle and micro certain units - and you may not want them focus firing the lowest HP unit. Why do you think charge is on autocast? Blizzard gives you the option to turn it off so that you may order your zealots to charge specific units, but I suspect the reason charge is on autocast is because nearly everyone would leave it that way. Why make it more difficult for protoss players to charge? Should they not have the apm and skill and mechanics to charge properly? And the reason blink isn't on autocast? Because you have to make tactical decisions. Of course, if you feel that you are in such great control of your zealots that you would like to micro their charge, go for it. But I suspect you would prefer to turn your attention to your stalkers or sentries instead. It's the same with workers. | ||
|
Buddhist
United States658 Posts
| ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
 Autosplit makes me sad. | ||
|
Buddhist
United States658 Posts
Why don't my units automatically move out of psionic storm when they're attacking? Stupid interface, it should do everything for me. | ||
|
Buddhist
United States658 Posts
Why can't I queue up chrono boosts to be used one after another (with no wasted time)? Why can't I autocast spawn larva by choice? Why can't I have an auto-pylon option, so a designated probe will build a pylon for me before I get supply capped every time? Why isn't there a way to have my units automatically follow a build order perfectly? Like, I figure out the timings, and then input them, and then my probes will do all of the menial pointless button pushing for me, because strategy and tactics are all that matter, not doing things like splitting up workers to get a more efficient income at the start of the game. That's archaic and pointless. But like I said, splitting specifically, I don't care about. It's the overall argument that "you shouldn't have to control your units to do things that you'll obviously want to do" that I disagree with. You're obviously going to want to move all of your units in range to attack when you go into a battle, but you have to manually order your units to attack, move, attack, move, until they're all in range. Just like in SC1, you obviously want to have all of your probes gather at the start, but you have to tell each one to go to its own patch, for maximum efficiency. But, because some people have a disdain for worker splitting, they will never understand why their arbitrary prejudice in what you should or shouldn't be forced to do manually is illogical. | ||
|
gotlucky
United States60 Posts
On June 05 2010 06:43 Buddhist wrote: Everyone has to focus fire to be successful. Why isn't that automated? If I a-move with a big blob of units, the ones in the front will attack from max range, and the back rows will run around doing nothing. Why don't my units automatically move up closer so they can all fire? When I send all of my probes to a single mineral patch (in SC1) why don't they automatically split up, instead of some sitting around wasting time? Why doesn't the game do everything for me? Like I said, you have to decide which units you want to focus fire. Just because it's wise to do it does not necessarily mean the system can know what units you want to focus fire. Like I said, there is attack priority, which is the systems way of automating your units' attack. But it cannot know what units you want to ff. I think the system can figure out pretty easily that you want your workers to mine minerals instead of just sitting at your CC. On June 05 2010 06:53 Buddhist wrote: Why don't units have a movement mode (other than m and a) which automatically stops the units long enough to fire once (assuming there is something in range to shoot), then they keep walking, so that the menial, mindless task of stop-firing is automated? You really think stop-firing button mashing shows skill lolololololololololol? Why don't my units automatically move out of psionic storm when they're attacking? Stupid interface, it should do everything for me. They do have patrol, which lets you have your units attack enemy units in an area set by you, and if the enemy leaves that area your units return. This also happens without setting it to patrol. Also, how would the game know that you want your units to fire once and then move, and then fire again. In what direction? This is why you micro those units. The game is not a mind reader. Also, psionic storm? Your units do move out of psi storm if they are not attacking - such as workers. However, when you have set your units to do something such as workers mining or siege tanks attacking, how would the game know you want them to move out of psi storm? Perhaps you still want your workers to mine. You might want those extra minerals in order to warp in a unit. Or maybe you want your siege tanks to continue sieging their army. You have already given them an order, so how would the game know you want to give a different command now that they are under psi storm? Well, you give the order. The game cannot know your preference in these situations. The game does know that you want your miners to be mining different patches instead of 6 on one patch. On June 05 2010 06:59 Buddhist wrote: Why can't I do wireframe spell casting anymore? Why can't I queue up chrono boosts to be used one after another (with no wasted time)? Why can't I autocast spawn larva by choice? Why can't I have an auto-pylon option, so a designated probe will build a pylon for me before I get supply capped every time? Why isn't there a way to have my units automatically follow a build order perfectly? Like, I figure out the timings, and then input them, and then my probes will do all of the menial pointless button pushing for me, because strategy and tactics are all that matter, not doing things like splitting up workers to get a more efficient income at the start of the game. That's archaic and pointless. But like I said, splitting specifically, I don't care about. It's the overall argument that "you shouldn't have to control your units to do things that you'll obviously want to do" that I disagree with. You're obviously going to want to move all of your units in range to attack when you go into a battle, but you have to manually order your units to attack, move, attack, move, until they're all in range. Just like in SC1, you obviously want to have all of your probes gather at the start, but you have to tell each one to go to its own patch, for maximum efficiency. But, because some people have a disdain for worker splitting, they will never understand why their arbitrary prejudice in what you should or shouldn't be forced to do manually is illogical. Well I suppose there could be a good argument for having autocast for chronoboost. So you could set your nexus to chrono itself whenever it got the chance. However, I suspect the reason Blizzard doesn't do that is because you would waste a ton of energy on chronoboost when you aren't building probes. Then I suppose they could go ahead and program it to only cast when the building being boosted is building. I don't really see anything wrong with that. However, if you ever wanted to switch buildings, you would then have to make sure that you set your autochronoboost back to whatever building you preferred. Maybe Blizzard experimented with this idea and found that protoss players chronoboost such a wide variety of buildings on a regular basis that autocasting chronoboost would result in a higher apm - you have then have to make sure you were set to the right building, what if you forgot to reset it? So maybe Blizzard decided it caused too much trouble for players. Or maybe they just haven't thought of it yet. Again, autocasting spawn larva doesn't seem so bad. However, then you would not be able to save up energy for other spells - since all would be wasted on autocast larva. So, Blizzard leaves the decision up to you to spawn larva, since autospawn could cause you to have a lack of energy when you actually need it. Where would the probe build the autopylons? The game cannot know where you would want those. There would also be the problem of spending minerals on pylons when you might actually want it for a zealot instead. How could the game know what you want to do with those minerals? It can't, so it isn't automated. Same with a build order. Placement of buildings is just as important as when you get them. And maybe some games you might not want to block off your ramp. Or you might want to do it differently. Automating a build order would be impossible, especially because it would not allow for any kind of reaction to your enemy. It's the same with attack range. Maybe you want to hit and run. Maybe you don't want your units to move to one space away and then start firing. Maybe you want to hit at max range and then retreat. The game cannot know this. So you have to control your units in order to tell them what you want them to do. The game does know that when you send workers to mineral patches that you want them to be efficient. It does not know that you might want to kite with your reapers instead of attacking the probes. The solution? Well, you tell your reapers to attack probes, and if you want them to kite zealots, you tell them to kite zealots. Kinda the way it is already. I'm done with this thread. I cannot tell if I'm being trolled, and if I'm not, I'm done with your closed minded thinking. | ||
|
Kwidowmaker
Canada978 Posts
On June 03 2010 05:43 Gedrah wrote: This data is misleading. Don't let it confuse you into thinking that you can get a bad split and waste mining time and still not lose worker building time after your first worker. Starcraft is a game where every single action echoes through the future and while some actions have much more profound effects than others, it is always in your best interests to help safeguard against unknown factors by maximizing your benefit out of the assets you have. If your 2nd SCV pops out 1 second later than your enemy's does, you are behind... That's all. It's not magic, it's just mathematical fact. It doesn't necessarily mean much at all, but the point is that SC is not usually a game where you can afford to throw away any advantage at all. If you do happen to play a game that ends up being decided by the razor's edge such as 5 minerals worth of unit, and you got a bad split at the beginning, then it's theoretically possible to say you lost that game at the 00:00:00 mark. Even though a thousand other decisions you made might have had more effect on the battle. On most maps I've been playing, e.g. Kulas and Metalo, if I queue an SCV and instantly move all 6 SCVs to the same, center mineral patch with no split (sometimes a game lags at the beginning, giving me adequate time to perfectly execute whatever split I want and queue my SCV all in the 00:00:00 instant), I will lose almost 1 second of SCV time. It's not a whole second. But it's lost time! It's lost time that is prevented by having a good split; In the same circumstance, if I split my workers to individual patches or even just get a solid half-split, I will have 55 minerals just before my first SCV finishes and comfortably start my second SCV in time to see him in the queue behind the first. There's really nothing else to do at that point in the game besides edge in whatever perfection you can and use spare moments to think about the map and plan possible tech\upgrade\production\expansion routes out in your head. Find me a game that was won by a 1 second scv advantage. The advantage you are talking about is the kind that you squander by readily having your mineral count stay at 1 instead of 0, having a zergling picked off, being a split second late on a production run, queuing a single unit, or building your nexus at 420. Yes, it's that inconsequential. | ||
|
Buddhist
United States658 Posts
It's just ironic that you're calling me closed minded, when all you're doing is arbitrarily distinguishing between something that takes skill that you enjoy, and something that takes skill that you don't enjoy. You have no real reasoning. You just don't like it. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On June 05 2010 06:53 Buddhist wrote: Why don't units have a movement mode (other than m and a) which automatically stops the units long enough to fire once (assuming there is something in range to shoot), then they keep walking, so that the menial, mindless task of stop-firing is automated? You really think stop-firing button mashing shows skill lolololololololololol? Why don't my units automatically move out of psionic storm when they're attacking? Stupid interface, it should do everything for me. On June 05 2010 06:59 Buddhist wrote: Why can't I do wireframe spell casting anymore? Why can't I queue up chrono boosts to be used one after another (with no wasted time)? Why can't I autocast spawn larva by choice? Why can't I have an auto-pylon option, so a designated probe will build a pylon for me before I get supply capped every time? Why isn't there a way to have my units automatically follow a build order perfectly? Like, I figure out the timings, and then input them, and then my probes will do all of the menial pointless button pushing for me, because strategy and tactics are all that matter, not doing things like splitting up workers to get a more efficient income at the start of the game. That's archaic and pointless. But like I said, splitting specifically, I don't care about. It's the overall argument that "you shouldn't have to control your units to do things that you'll obviously want to do" that I disagree with. You're obviously going to want to move all of your units in range to attack when you go into a battle, but you have to manually order your units to attack, move, attack, move, until they're all in range. Just like in SC1, you obviously want to have all of your probes gather at the start, but you have to tell each one to go to its own patch, for maximum efficiency. But, because some people have a disdain for worker splitting, they will never understand why their arbitrary prejudice in what you should or shouldn't be forced to do manually is illogical. Answer to almost all of these: multitasking. Even in seemingly single-minded decisions like spawning larvae on your hatcheries, there's the implicit choice in the fact that every moment spent looking at your hatcheries is one that's NOT spent managing your armies. If you're stop-firing your workers, it makes it proportionally more difficult to macro at the same time. Splitting your workers doesn't offer that choice. There's nothing else you could possibly be paying attention to at that stage of the game, unless you're maphacking. | ||
|
Fizbin
Canada202 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Big Brain Bouts
goblin vs Kelazhur
TriGGeR vs Krystianer
Replay Cast
RongYI Cup
herO vs Maru
Replay Cast
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
The PondCast
|
|
|
EPT
