EPTcompetitive play issues - Page 15
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Brutalisk
794 Posts
| ||
|
ImgGartok
United States216 Posts
On September 07 2007 09:12 LonelyMargarita wrote: Please don't say I said things I didn't. If you want to quote me, quote me; if you want to lie, don't bother posting. You sound like Bill O'Reilly. He doesn't need to quote you, you've said the same thing for 20+ pages. Name calling is basically a logical fallacy, you should take a college level writing class sometime. At this point I honestly don't care if it's in or not, people just seem to eager to look at this feature and that, and fail to see the big picture. Warp gates, interchangeable terran addons, Thors... people don't take in the new macro gameplay features when talking about these things. And basically you need to take a chill pill dude. It's a game. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
I'm pretty much certain the interchangeable addons will mostly be used to get tech very quickly, not for mass production (ie you wont be using your time migrating buildings between addons). | ||
|
ImgGartok
United States216 Posts
On September 07 2007 11:19 FrozenArbiter wrote: How do the interchangeable addons, or - wtf - the Thors change anything macrowise? 1) Teach me how to MBS Thors, that'd be a neat trick. Which two keys do I press to build 5 Thors at once. 2) Interchangeable addons give Terran players more versatility. If you have some factories with reactors and some with tech labs, by definition you're using those factories for different purposes. And if you want to change addons up between different buildings, then of course you're gonna have to be clicking. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
Firstly, 15 raxes is exaggeration, secondly, they will simultaneously produce marines only if you have no less than 750 minerals and thirdly, clicking at barracks isn't hard at all and doesn't have a bit of impact at the defining of the winner. MBS doesn't make game easier, it **looks** easier and that's the definition of good interface. In the first place starcraft become popular cause it's balanced, spectacular and tends to lay at principle "easy to learn, hard to master" in every possible aspect. But today partly archaic and unintuitive UI doesn't fit this concept. 15 raxes is at most a slight exaggeration. You've seen Oov's and nada's super late game bases when they go marine/medic/vessel right? Fuuuuuuuuuull of raxes. And if you don't see why it would make playing terran ridiculously much easier then I don't think you are trying. Consider this: I have 5 groups of marines, medics and science vessels, I'm moving about the middle of the map. Which takes most effort: 4m or f2 m mm mm mm m m m m m m mm on all my raxes (or double tapping a key to get back to main, or whatever)? Obviously MBS is going to have an impact here. I'm arguing against MBS, but I'm not completely 100% dead set against it, as some people have said, it's probably best to wait until the beta before making the final decision, but it is an addition to the game which ramifications worry me. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 07 2007 11:24 Oc wrote: 1) Teach me how to MBS Thors, that'd be a neat trick. Which two keys do I press to build 5 Thors at once. 2) Interchangeable addons give Terran players more versatility. If you have some factories with reactors and some with tech labs, by definition you're using those factories for different purposes. And if you want to change addons up between different buildings, then of course you're gonna have to be clicking. True, I didn't think through what you meant when you said Thors - I assumed you meant something else. Just thought "Wtf thor's a unit, must be a typo  !". Still, you'll be able to select 12 scvs and just place out 12 thors without cloning or microing very much since that part of the interface has been changed as well (and I'm not really complaining, I think it's a minor change compared to MBS).Your second point I already addressed I think. | ||
|
Fuu
198 Posts
On September 07 2007 10:53 Brutalisk wrote: But it also doesn't mean that it is a bad thing just because it was in other RTS which didn't have the success of Starcraft. But it's not even the point here : why take the risk to mess up everything when it's not even a damn improvement ! | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On September 07 2007 11:24 Oc wrote: 1) Teach me how to MBS Thors, that'd be a neat trick. Which two keys do I press to build 5 Thors at once. 2) Interchangeable addons give Terran players more versatility. If you have some factories with reactors and some with tech labs, by definition you're using those factories for different purposes. And if you want to change addons up between different buildings, then of course you're gonna have to be clicking. What? It's good that thors can't be made all at once, it's bad that that's the only unit in the whole game with a feature like that. This is whole problem, and pointing out one unit that doesn't utilize MBS doesn't save us from the fact that the entire macro system in starcraft has been given training wheels. Different add ons doesn't have anything to do with macroing, that just means they've given the terran a more sexy tech tree to work with. That doesn't save us from the fact that producing units is easy and feels slower. Let me clairify that when we're discussing macro in this thread we're talking about the method of production for units, not the tech tree that they are produced from or the different types of buildings that will be utilized in sc 2. I think we can have another thread about that entire topic. in regards to ILoveOOv clicking on his barrax's... terrans are forced to click on the barrax's because the 'm' key is in an odd location on the keyboard. Unlike with the 'd' key you can't adjust your hand in a simple position to macro with multiple fingers from the 'm' key unless your using your 'thumb on 'm and your other four fingers on the 1 to 8 keys. The problem there is that your overlapping the keys you would probably be binding to your army with. If 'm' was at where the 'r' key was, iloveoov would be macroing his marines off his keyboard with ease until he ran out of keys to bind. Instead, in this rare case, clicking becomes faster. IF they keyboard can be utilized in an effective manner... it always should be. | ||
|
ImgGartok
United States216 Posts
On September 07 2007 11:50 MyLostTemple wrote: What? It's good that thors can't be made all at once, it's bad that that's the only unit in the whole game with a feature like that. This is whole problem, and pointing out one unit that doesn't utilize MBS doesn't save us from the fact that the entire macro system in starcraft has been given training wheels. Different add ons doesn't have anything to do with macroing, that just means they've given the terran a more sexy tech tree to work with. That doesn't save us from the fact that producing units is easy and feels slower. Let me clairify that when we're discussing macro in this thread we're talking about the method of production for units, not the tech tree that they are produced from or the different types of buildings that will be utilized in sc 2. I think we can have another thread about that entire topic. in regards to ILoveOOv clicking on his barrax's... terrans are forced to click on the barrax's because the 'm' key is in an odd location on the keyboard. Unlike with the 'd' key you can't adjust your hand in a simple position to macro with multiple fingers from the 'm' key unless your using your 'thumb on 'm and your other four fingers on the 1 to 8 keys. The problem there is that your overlapping the keys you would probably be binding to your army with. If 'm' was at where the 'r' key was, iloveoov would be macroing his marines off his keyboard with ease until he ran out of keys to bind. Instead, in this rare case, clicking becomes faster. IF they keyboard can be utilized in an effective manner... it always should be. I honestly don't even know why it matters. If you don't need the feature then don't utilize it. I mean, are you guys even keeping things in perspective? You can selective multiple buildings. Will everyone in the world all of a sudden become oov because they can do so? Like I said I don't necessarily want the features, however if they're in the game I definitely don't think it's the end of the world. When I tried WarCraft 3 I started off very terrible, and didn't build units during micro (which we all know is a big part of the game, being able to multitask and train units/macro constantly.) Whether I had one barracks, or two, made NO difference. I was a noob and didn't pay attention to my macro while fighting, PERIOD. Basically I had the same problem as I did in StarCraft, MBS did NOT change anything. Then I returned to StarCraft and began to play more serious, and trust me: I did not miss MBS. It made no difference, and I could care less whether it's in or not. The skill levels will remain the same, those who can multitask effectively will still be on top. I've trained very hard to be able to multitask better during fights, and I don't think that training will be for nothing when SC2 comes out. | ||
|
H
New Zealand6138 Posts
On September 07 2007 12:44 Oc wrote: Will everyone in the world all of a sudden become oov because they can do so? Nobody is arguing that people will suddenly parallel oov in talent. What we're saying is that (and this is a fact) macro is being made much easier. TvZ is pretty much the best example here, because you can hotkey groups of barracks together and just hit M or C - you don't even need to tab back to your base to pump from 8-12 barracks during the middle of a fight. It's removing a large element of base management, which is a core part of gameplay. On September 07 2007 12:44 Oc wrote: Then I returned to StarCraft and began to play more serious, and trust me: I did not miss MBS. It made no difference, and I could care less whether it's in or not. The skill levels will remain the same, those who can multitask effectively will still be on top. I've trained very hard to be able to multitask better during fights, and I don't think that training will be for nothing when SC2 comes out. So, you didn't miss it when you returned from WC3 to SC, why would you miss it going from SC to SC2? | ||
|
Fuu
198 Posts
On September 07 2007 12:44 Oc wrote: Then I returned to StarCraft and began to play more serious, and trust me: I did not miss MBS. It made no difference, and I could care less whether it's in or not. The skill levels will remain the same, those who can multitask effectively will still be on top. I've trained very hard to be able to multitask better during fights, and I don't think that training will be for nothing when SC2 comes out. Thats why it is useless to continue to speak with you : if you think MBS (especially coupled with auto mining) will make NO difference and won't change skill gap, some people will never agree. Even if you still have to get this sense of macro (stop arguing on this ffs), the attention part you have to give to it is HUGELY decreased. Thus, you put out an essential part of the game, closing the skill gap generated by at least this component (which is major). | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
| ||
|
LonelyMargarita
1845 Posts
On September 07 2007 10:36 Brutalisk wrote: You said exactly that (players who can't macro correctly (noobs) want MBS, the other ones don't) in your first paragraph... *sigh* You weakened your generalization by saying that you are maybe overgeneralizing, but still... I used myself as a counter example. And this whole discussion is really getting nowhere. Wow, lie more. Go read what I typed, and instead of making shit up, PASTE IT. That way you get it right. Seriously, go read it. Because that's not what I said, liar. Then go look up STRAW MAN, and learn how to debate. You CANNOT debate, so all you do is strawman. It's a weak, fallacious move people do when they've already lost. | ||
|
LonelyMargarita
1845 Posts
On September 07 2007 12:44 Oc wrote: I honestly don't even know why it matters. If you don't need the feature then don't utilize it. I mean, are you guys even keeping things in perspective? You can selective multiple buildings. Will everyone in the world all of a sudden become oov because they can do so? Like I said I don't necessarily want the features, however if they're in the game I definitely don't think it's the end of the world. When I tried WarCraft 3 I started off very terrible, and didn't build units during micro (which we all know is a big part of the game, being able to multitask and train units/macro constantly.) Whether I had one barracks, or two, made NO difference. I was a noob and didn't pay attention to my macro while fighting, PERIOD. Basically I had the same problem as I did in StarCraft, MBS did NOT change anything. Then I returned to StarCraft and began to play more serious, and trust me: I did not miss MBS. It made no difference, and I could care less whether it's in or not. The skill levels will remain the same, those who can multitask effectively will still be on top. I've trained very hard to be able to multitask better during fights, and I don't think that training will be for nothing when SC2 comes out. Here's a question for you: Why do we need MBS? What was so horrible about BroodWar that MBS is absolutely necessary at all levels of play? | ||
|
YinYang69
United States255 Posts
I think the problem is a lot of you guys are assuming this will play or be exactly like SC1. It's not just the UI going through change other part of the game is changing to and they are going to interchange and create something balance and easy to play yet impossible to master like SC1 at least that's my hope. | ||
|
ImgGartok
United States216 Posts
Thats why it is useless to continue to speak with you : if you think MBS (especially coupled with auto mining) will make NO difference and won't change skill gap, some people will never agree. Even if you still have to get this sense of macro (stop arguing on this ffs), the attention part you have to give to it is HUGELY decreased. Thus, you put out an essential part of the game, closing the skill gap generated by at least this component (which is major). Oh it'll make a difference in skill gap, but not at the pro level, which is where I'm pointing out the ridiculousness. People who are saying "there will be no more Saviors or iloveoovs." It'll affect those in mid-range skill range and below. Basically, in 95% of all instances, if you could beat someone before MBS you will be able to beat them with MBS. Are you really beating some people now ONLY because you can click through 10 gateways faster? Like I said, the hard part of macro isn't the actual clicking, it's remembering when to and incorporating that clicking into your game. When I'm attacking an enemy base, it doesn't matter if I could select 100 factories if I don't even remember to, and that's is the true separation of skill difference. On September 07 2007 13:06 FrozenArbiter wrote: In war3 you usually dont have more than 5 or something buildings anyway, so it's kinda hard to see how MBS would affect SC having only experienced MBS in War3. My point with bringing up my War3 experience was that I had the same problem across both games as an RTS noob, which was that I wasn't building units during battles, and multitasking efficiently. So yes, WarCraft 3 has smaller scale battles but the point is after a battle I'd have 1000 gold and lumber like a noob. When first starting out playing SC, isn't that the same thing what we all do? What we're trying to overcome is the ability to macro, not the ability to click 7 factories faster. On September 07 2007 13:19 LonelyMargarita wrote: Here's a question for you: Why do we need MBS? What was so horrible about BroodWar that MBS is absolutely necessary at all levels of play? I'm not saying it's absolutely necessary. I do feel it's a logical thing to add in to an RTS UI in the year 2007/08, and that macro difficulty should come from GAMEPLAY not the UI. However, I wouldn't care at all if it wasn't in the game, but there's a lot of things in SC2 that I don't care about and I feel it's pointless to fight over such trivial things. I mean, I really hate auto-mine rally a lot, because I've gotten use to spam click fest in the beginning and have noticed many low level players who have idle workers even before a single structure is built. But really... is it going to RUIN the game if it's in there? Are those terrible players who have idle SCV's at 9/10 going to become my EQUALS because of the feature? Nope. It's just there, and I'm not going to really fight it, even though I would much prefer the game be without it. ========================================================= You guys need to stop trying to treat this as win or lose, wrong or right. We all want SC2 to be a good game. My main message is just to keep everything in perspective, and really think about how '(un)drastic' these changes are. | ||
|
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
On September 07 2007 05:46 LonelyMargarita wrote: I think there's a huge point that hasn't even been made yet. It's assuming that the kind of people that want MBS, automine, etc. are generally the below 100 apm, play 3v3 BGH, and the occasional 1v1 LT type of player (and everyone worse), and that the vast majority of people better than that (120+ APM, mostly 1v1s, sometimes does 2v2 on non-money pro maps) are very much against MBS. There, pasted. Now stop accusing others of lying. You have nothing to back up your assumptions, and fyi I also fall into the latter category yet I'm not opposed to the idea of MBS. As does nearly everyone who visits this site, since a BGH/money player would have no interest whatsoever in a site focused on SC PRO-gaming. | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
orc, if you don't see why it matters, don't argue with people who do. | ||
|
Tupan
Brazil319 Posts
Now I see how far sighted he was. The fact is they seem to have gotten over it: there IS going to be MBS+automining and it is going to be sweet for 98% of SC2 players. For the remaining 2%, there will always be the old and good SC1. | ||
|
ImgGartok
United States216 Posts
On September 07 2007 13:55 MyLostTemple wrote: orc, if you don't see why it matters, don't argue with people who do. See, there you go with that mentality of win or lose with arguing. If you had actually read the rest of my post, you would see that I made valid points in regards to why it shouldn't matter, but of course you didn't address them because you're only here to win on the internet, and you'll use my wording to try and "win" this argument. The name is Oc not Orc. | ||
| ||
There's always something to do.
