EPTThis zerg dilemma intrigues me.. i wonder if building with zerg will be the same? we have yet to see a hatchery.. maybe there are no larvae anymore? blizzard can pull anything out of the hat at this moment..
Multiple Building Selection - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Bully-Cdn
Peru58 Posts
This zerg dilemma intrigues me.. i wonder if building with zerg will be the same? we have yet to see a hatchery.. maybe there are no larvae anymore? blizzard can pull anything out of the hat at this moment.. | ||
|
AmorVincitOmnia
Kenya3846 Posts
On May 21 2007 17:24 Bully-Cdn(TheTrap) wrote: There will always be a skill gap between pros and nonpros, as mentioned by others.. there are gonna be so many other factors other than being able to select all ur buildings... macro isn't just a "factor", it's a good 60% of the game and one of the biggest thing that separates and makes starcraft such a competitive game. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
|
AmorVincitOmnia
Kenya3846 Posts
jesus christ | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
 I will say tho that the more I see and hear about SC2, the more I feel that blizzard won't fuck this part up, I'm gonna reserve my judgement until they release details on how exactly it will work. | ||
semioldguy
United States7488 Posts
On May 21 2007 17:33 Servolisk wrote: Why don't we just make SC mouse only to further increase the skill gap and make another non-strategic element a big factor of a strategy game? I hate it when people retort with idiodic things like this. That's just taking it to a different extreme, which is also bad. Starcraft is wonderful in part because it doesn't take anything toward any extremes; it creates a friendly balance between it's tasks. Some noobifications are good, if implemented properly. Some are not good. The same is true for advanced multitasking, in some cases it is good for the game, whem properly implemented, in others not so much. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
I really have no interest in playing a game about multitasking. When I bought SC originally I wanted a "strategy" game. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On May 21 2007 17:42 Servolisk wrote: T.T I really have no interest in playing a game about multitasking. When I bought SC originally I wanted a "strategy" game. But then you discovered that SC was an awesome mix of multitasking AND strategy and fell in love? | ||
|
Piccolo
Chile621 Posts
But, Why always try to make coreans like gods? Think About it. Maybe YOU, yes, You, have the same or maybe better understanding of the game than Oov himself, but you can't keep with a player like him just because of his speed. Maybe with this, you have the oportunity (or at least more chances) to face great players that understand the game at your same lvl, and not be defeated by someone who did the wrong units but in an insane number because of his apm. This feature will for sure put the gap closer between Coreans and rest of the world. Sorry for my english :D | ||
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On May 21 2007 17:38 semioldguy wrote: I hate it when people retort with idiodic things like this. That's just taking it to a different extreme, which is also bad. Starcraft is wonderful in part because it doesn't take anything toward any extremes; it creates a friendly balance between it's tasks. Some noobifications are good, if implemented properly. Some are not good. The same is true for advanced multitasking, in some cases it is good for the game, whem properly implemented, in others not so much. I hate when people miss the point of the analogy. What it proves is that given feature X, you cannot argue for or against it simply because "It will add another facet into the game and make it harder and separate newb from pro", because if you accept that as valid reasoning, then you are logically compelled to accept any and all features that makes the game harder and separate newb from pro. Your burden is to demonstrate why the argument is valid up to but not beyond that particular point. So for example, in unit selection: Let's move unit selection up to 24! NO THAT'S BAD. YOU SHOULD KEEP IT AT 12 BECAUSE THAT INTRODUCES MORE SKILL AND MAKES IT HARDER So why not move it down to 6, 3 or 1 then? What is so uniquely special about 12 such that makes it the only good point, other than the fact that we are used to it being that way? | ||
|
semioldguy
United States7488 Posts
On May 21 2007 17:42 Servolisk wrote: T.T I really have no interest in playing a game about multitasking. When I bought SC originally I wanted a "strategy" game. You tastes can be what they are, but part of what I believe makes Real Time Strategy games so interesting (and the fact that they are real time strategy game) is the issue of multitasking. A lot of people seem to want to slow the game down or automate/make easier a bunch of things and that if they do the superior strategist within them will come flying out their anus and make them into some supreme general. Thinking and reacting in a timely manner is part of an RTS, if players can't deal they should go play a turn based strategy game. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On May 21 2007 17:42 FrozenArbiter wrote: But then you discovered that SC was an awesome mix of multitasking AND strategy and fell in love? No, cuz I was already in love from single player, and back then my apm was probably 30 :p Anyway, I don't follow war3, but don't they have plenty to multitask and high apms? :o The way people talk it would seem like they don't. edit: so ... wouldn't this just make other things the focus of your multitasking and improve the general level of skill for all people while still keeping the gap? Because the gap is going to stay with or without a change. | ||
|
AmorVincitOmnia
Kenya3846 Posts
| ||
|
AmorVincitOmnia
Kenya3846 Posts
On May 21 2007 17:44 GrandInquisitor wrote: I hate when people miss the point of the analogy. What it proves is that given feature X, you cannot argue for or against it simply because "It will add another facet into the game and make it harder and separate newb from pro", because if you accept that as valid reasoning, then you are logically compelled to accept any and all features that makes the game harder and separate newb from pro. Your burden is to demonstrate why the argument is valid up to but not beyond that particular point. So for example, in unit selection: Let's move unit selection up to 24! NO THAT'S BAD. YOU SHOULD KEEP IT AT 12 BECAUSE THAT INTRODUCES MORE SKILL AND MAKES IT HARDER So why not move it down to 6, 3 or 1 then? What is so uniquely special about 12 such that makes it the only good point, other than the fact that we are used to it being that way? uhhhh because 12 has been proven to work well??? | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On May 21 2007 17:49 AmorVincitOmnia wrote: you don't hear about wc3 players quitting to play starcraft, do you? I'm sure they will quit to play SC2 :p | ||
|
semioldguy
United States7488 Posts
On May 21 2007 17:44 GrandInquisitor wrote: I hate when people miss the point of the analogy. What it proves is that given feature X, you cannot argue for or against it simply because "It will add another facet into the game and make it harder and separate newb from pro", because if you accept that as valid reasoning, then you are logically compelled to accept any and all features that makes the game harder and separate newb from pro. Your burden is to demonstrate why the argument is valid up to but not beyond that particular point. So for example, in unit selection: Let's move unit selection up to 24! NO THAT'S BAD. YOU SHOULD KEEP IT AT 12 BECAUSE THAT INTRODUCES MORE SKILL AND MAKES IT HARDER So why not move it down to 6, 3 or 1 then? What is so uniquely special about 12 such that makes it the only good point, other than the fact that we are used to it being that way? I actually think increased amount of unit selection is one of the better changes. Like I said in my quote, some changes can be good, others bad. This is a thread about selecting multiple buildings at once (with emphasis on producing units). Not a thread about unit selection. I am for a balance between noob and pro, to make it competeitive for the pro, but simple enough for the noob. Some changes (not all) I feel push that too much in one direction or the other. | ||
IntoTheWow
is awesome32277 Posts
On May 21 2007 17:44 GrandInquisitor wrote: I hate when people miss the point of the analogy. What it proves is that given feature X, you cannot argue for or against it simply because "It will add another facet into the game and make it harder and separate newb from pro", because if you accept that as valid reasoning, then you are logically compelled to accept any and all features that makes the game harder and separate newb from pro. Your burden is to demonstrate why the argument is valid up to but not beyond that particular point. So for example, in unit selection: Let's move unit selection up to 24! NO THAT'S BAD. YOU SHOULD KEEP IT AT 12 BECAUSE THAT INTRODUCES MORE SKILL AND MAKES IT HARDER So why not move it down to 6, 3 or 1 then? What is so uniquely special about 12 such that makes it the only good point, other than the fact that we are used to it being that way? Most people are not against increasing the gap, but against the "no cap" thing. Have you ever played Age Of Empires? | ||
|
semioldguy
United States7488 Posts
On May 21 2007 17:49 AmorVincitOmnia wrote: you don't hear about wc3 players quitting to play starcraft, do you? You mean other than Freedom.werra? I have many friends, as well as myself, who quit war3 and returned to playing Starcraft. Sure, I originally stopped playing Starcraft to play the new game, but came back to it as I thought it was the better game of the two. Not everyone is the same, many people will leave both games for SC2, and I sure there will be people who return to both. To each his own. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On May 21 2007 17:49 AmorVincitOmnia wrote: you don't hear about wc3 players quitting to play starcraft, do you? Yes you do  But for other reasons. (ie freedom.werra changing to starcraft from war3) | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
If SC2 comes out with unlimited building selection, I probably won't even bother. And we really have to quit with the dumb analogies. You don't see any proponents of single building selection saying, "why don't we just limit the number of production buildings, because that would further even the playing field?" because what you people are saying is pretty much equivalent. Also, those of you who say it should be less about mechanics and more about "skill" please define skill. Is it experience aka game sense, ability to flank, timing? | ||
| ||
