On September 05 2007 14:33 YinYang69 wrote: Wouldn't a easier interface still give the higher APM player more things to do and therefore still be better than their opponent? So instead of like the old game where you have to fight the outdated/bad interface to storm and build zealots in a few seconds, now you can storm, web, maelstrom, build zealots, do two simultaneous drops, expand and get a few extra gateways all in the span of like five seconds. Doesn't that sound better?
Nope, because the human brain is technically incapabale of mutitasking concious actions, Sure you can do one action and quickly switch to another making it look like you did both at the same time, but you really didnt. Starcraft works on this brilliantly, becuase you cannot control a base and an army at the same time, even if the interface allowed you to do so. So to make the game easier for you, you would ask that one action is really easy to do so you can focus on the other. Way to take out the difficulty in starcraft. Starcraft is about mulitasking, which is the hardest thing for the concious brain to do. This is what makes it hard, not the handspeed requirements. Dont remove this multitasking focus.
Btw for anyone who thinks they can mutltitask. Place your hands in front of you with your two fingers pointing together. Now rotate ure fingers around each other in the same direction. After youve done that, rotate them in the opposite direction. Then After than try and rotate them in different directions at the same time. If you can do so, PM me because you are one of the few people in the world who are able to actually multitask.
On September 05 2007 19:17 Brutalisk wrote: 1esu pretty much nailed it. I liked the Go comparison. That's a good one... in Starcraft, basically, in order to "use" your troops you need to do a tedious action first that is quite out of place (it does require more skill but it is something stupid). So why not just remove it.
Because it requires more skill and is not stupid, but fun?
That's also what I meant in my post about priorities: the part of macro that is clicking through your factories is stupid, time-consuming and may make the game become more and more macro based. It does introduce a new skill element, but this element is misplaced. Might as well do a stupid mini-game each time before you are able to build units.
Fihsugdufy8hu8iiuufdhg
Having MBS will enable the players to pay more attention to the "real" game. Of course, the real game should then offer a big enough strategical and tactical depth. It's hard to tell at this point. We also haven't seen the Zerg yet. But with all the new possibilities like walking over terrain, the moving phase cannons, being able to deploy your troops anywhere on the map (warp gates, nydus worm), and very dangerous AoE attackers like Banshee, Mothership or Phoenix, the game has at least the potential to become more intense and fast-paced than BW ever was. You will need to pay more attention to your units, and you probably won't be able to feel so safe in your base.
Ok, try to understand what I'm saying this time, I recognize that you might not think the same way about this but at least you'll understand why I think what you say is completely unsatisfactory:
All these features add to the micro aspect of the game. So you add to the micro, remove a lot of the macro, what do you get? The balance between the two is ruined, I want these new features you speak of, they seem fun and cool but they should not be added instead of macro, it's like removing rushing from the game and adding some cool late game scenario instead.
Also, many people who are against MBS forget that Starcraft wasn't always this way. It's just that everyone is MUCH more skilled today than back in 1999-2001, and they basically exploit one weakness of the game nowadays: it's less important to take care of your troops than simply reproducing them. Reproducing them is hard, so it is a (questionable) skill, but the problem is that it's more rewarding. I can simply choose to have 10 zealots die doing almost nothing (at least much less damage that they could have done) when I can rebuild them from 10 gateways within a very short time. Of course this doesn't apply to early or mid game, but late game. So basically, not having MBS will cause players to concentrate much more on the macro side (the micro players will have less and less success as time goes on) and will cause them to get more and more sloppy with their armies (A+click, let many units die) and more and more risky/greedy with their build orders.
It's not a questionable skill, it is a skill.
And personally, I like the shift of focus that happens as you move from early game to midgame, from midgame to late game and from late game to extreme late game (when it basically becomes a micro map).
Btw for anyone who thinks they can mutltitask. Place your hands in front of you with your two fingers pointing together. Now rotate ure fingers around each other in the same direction. After youve done that, rotate them in the opposite direction. Then After than try and rotate them in different directions at the same time. If you can do so, PM me because you are one of the few people in the world who are able to actually multitask.
done
it wasn't really that hard >_> i think the one hand with closed fist going up and down and 1 open palm sliding forwards and backwards thing is harder lol
On September 05 2007 19:17 Brutalisk wrote: It's less important to take care of your troops than simply reproducing them. Reproducing them is hard, so it is a (questionable) skill, but the problem is that it's more rewarding. I can simply choose to have 10 zealots die doing almost nothing (at least much less damage that they could have done) when I can rebuild them from 10 gateways within a very short time. Of course this doesn't apply to early or mid game, but late game. So basically, not having MBS will cause players to concentrate much more on the macro side (the micro players will have less and less success as time goes on) and will cause them to get more and more sloppy with their armies (A+click, let many units die) and more and more risky/greedy with their build orders.
Ok I think this is the fourth time ive argued this point in the last 2 days. Getting kinda annoying because the point keeps coming up and the proMBS ppl seem to think it really supports their cause.
In starcraft units range from the shit units to the good units. A Zealot is a shit unit. The Zealots role is to absorb damage and to force a player to take em out before they get close. They cost 100 minerals (bugger all). They are an expendable unit. So yes, you dont care when they die and you build more to replace without problems. Lets look at a carrier now. A carrier is a good unit. It does large amounts of damage, cost a lot of money, and is high up in the tech tree. If a carrier dies, its a big deal. You dont just attack move a bunch of carriers into an enemy force of goliathsm forget about them and build more, because they are worth something. This is a gameplay style of starcraft. Crap units are expendable and therefore you use them throughout the game as meatshields or extra damage etc. It doesnt matter when they die. Good units are expensive and hard to produce, you protect these units because they are the real might of your army. They are the factor that will cause you to win or lose a game.
The expendability of crap units in no way supports or works against MBS, or macro at all. These units are part of a structure that starcraft has which makes crap units worth getting even in the late stages of a game
Btw for anyone who thinks they can mutltitask. Place your hands in front of you with your two fingers pointing together. Now rotate ure fingers around each other in the same direction. After youve done that, rotate them in the opposite direction. Then After than try and rotate them in different directions at the same time. If you can do so, PM me because you are one of the few people in the world who are able to actually multitask.
done
it wasn't really that hard >_> i think the one hand with closed fist going up and down and 1 open palm sliding forwards and backwards thing is harder lol
I think that one is WAY easier haha T_T This one was hard for me aka I havent succeeded yet.
Ahhhh it feels like moving into a wall when I try to do th is. Mind goes like blank when I try to figure out how I should be moving them.
Btw for anyone who thinks they can mutltitask. Place your hands in front of you with your two fingers pointing together. Now rotate ure fingers around each other in the same direction. After youve done that, rotate them in the opposite direction. Then After than try and rotate them in different directions at the same time. If you can do so, PM me because you are one of the few people in the world who are able to actually multitask.
done
it wasn't really that hard >_> i think the one hand with closed fist going up and down and 1 open palm sliding forwards and backwards thing is harder lol
Im calling BS on that, Brain physiology doesnt allow it. Im assuming that your doing it wrong. Its not the same as rubbing your tummy and patting your head. Both of these actions at the same time require the same nerve to give different signals, a nerve can only produce 1 signal at a time.
If you still beleive you can do it, make a video, ill be glad to watch it
Btw for anyone who thinks they can mutltitask. Place your hands in front of you with your two fingers pointing together. Now rotate ure fingers around each other in the same direction. After youve done that, rotate them in the opposite direction. Then After than try and rotate them in different directions at the same time. If you can do so, PM me because you are one of the few people in the world who are able to actually multitask.
done
it wasn't really that hard >_> i think the one hand with closed fist going up and down and 1 open palm sliding forwards and backwards thing is harder lol
Im calling BS on that, Brain physiology doesnt allow it. Im assuming that your doing it wrong. Its not the same as rubbing your tummy and patting your head. Both of these actions at the same time require the same nerve to give different signals, a nerve can only produce 1 signal at a time.
If you still beleive you can do it, make a video, ill be glad to watch it
Just because he's "one in the few" (personally I think SC players would be better at this anyway) doesn't mean he's doing it wrong. I did it too. Maybe I'm wrong as well?
Let me get this straight.
Start with two fingers pointing at each other. Rotate them, say, clockwise. Then counterclockwise. Then in opposite directions?
yep, place your hands in front of you, with your index fingers pointing together (not touching) Now its easy to rotate em around each other in the same direction, its easy rotate em around each other in the opposite direction. But virtually impossible to do different directions at the same time without looking like a total goof.
On September 05 2007 23:27 Fen wrote: yep, place your hands in front of you, with your index fingers pointing together (not touching) Now its easy to rotate em around each other in the same direction, its easy rotate em around each other in the opposite direction. But virtually impossible to do different directions at the same time without looking like a total goof.
wtf seriously are you sure? i'm uploading a video soon
and lolololol who cares about MBS and automine this is much more interesting
On September 05 2007 22:32 FrozenArbiter wrote: All these features add to the micro aspect of the game. So you add to the micro, remove a lot of the macro, what do you get? The balance between the two is ruined, I want these new features you speak of, they seem fun and cool but they should not be added instead of macro, it's like removing rushing from the game and adding some cool late game scenario instead.
[/b]
The balance is already ruined! Making macro tedious and "hard" made micro less important. We need micro to become more important again. I've noticed how BW turned from a micro-based game into a macro-based one. And I don't want SC2 to "suffer" the same fate.
@ Fen: Yes the zealot is a "crap" unit, but that doesn't mean that you pointlessly waste it. I'm not even talking about using it as a meatshield, which would be a useful tactic. I'm really talking about making the mistake of sending them into certain death (e.g. sending them in a group of lurkers) without having any advantage from it. But also no big disadvantage, because you need only ~15 seconds to rebuild them all. And that's the problem, and the reason why BW has become a macro game: in late game it's often about rebuilding your stuff faster than your opponent, the rest is A+click. (Yes I'm exaggerating, of course there is micro needed with some units, but not nearly enough to be as important as macroing).
On September 05 2007 23:39 Brutalisk wrote: @ Fen: Yes the zealot is a "crap" unit, but that doesn't mean that you pointlessly waste it. I'm not even talking about using it as a meatshield, which would be a useful tactic. I'm really talking about making the mistake of sending them into certain death (e.g. sending them in a group of lurkers) without having any advantage from it. But also no big disadvantage, because you need only ~15 seconds to rebuild them all. And that's the problem, and the reason why BW has become a macro game: in late game it's often about rebuilding your stuff faster than your opponent, the rest is A+click. (Yes I'm exaggerating, of course there is micro needed with some units, but not nearly enough to be as important as macroing).
No-one said that you deliberatly waste it, but yeha if you lose it late game when your economy is going, its not so bad, its a crap unit. At the start of the game, a zealot is importnat but it loses that value as the game goes on. The expensive units however will never reach that status unless your playing fastest or somehting. This is a gameplay style of starcraft. Why should you bother microing your crappy units, they are there to die, if you lose them due to mistake, ok bad luck. If you lose your 8 carriers due to mistake, you probs gonna have to GG pretty soon.
EDIT: Affla - Wow Im surprised at how well you can do that, thats beyond what the average person can do. Granted the motion isnt as fluid as when your going the same way, but remember that is very simple multitasking, the human brain is not good at multitasking. That would have required a decent amount of concentration to pull off. Even though youve surprised me and pulled it off, it doesnt change the fact that multitasking is still damn hard.
On September 05 2007 22:32 FrozenArbiter wrote: All these features add to the micro aspect of the game. So you add to the micro, remove a lot of the macro, what do you get? The balance between the two is ruined, I want these new features you speak of, they seem fun and cool but they should not be added instead of macro, it's like removing rushing from the game and adding some cool late game scenario instead.
The balance is already ruined! Making macro tedious and "hard" made micro less important. We need micro to become more important again. I've noticed how BW turned from a micro-based game into a macro-based one. And I don't want SC2 to "suffer" the same fate.
[/b] Macro is not tedious.
BW has not gone from micro to macro, it's just that everyone (pro) has sick micro nowadays so it doesn't stand out the way it did in the past when only a few people had sick micro and most had avg. macro.
+ A lot of it is how playstyle and maps have changed, BW could become what it was years ago if balance changes were made that nerfed the power of fast expanding.
@ Fen: Yes the zealot is a "crap" unit, but that doesn't mean that you pointlessly waste it. I'm not even talking about using it as a meatshield, which would be a useful tactic. I'm really talking about making the mistake of sending them into certain death (e.g. sending them in a group of lurkers) without having any advantage from it. But also no big disadvantage, because you need only ~15 seconds to rebuild them all. And that's the problem, and the reason why BW has become a macro game: in late game it's often about rebuilding your stuff faster than your opponent, the rest is A+click. (Yes I'm exaggerating, of course there is micro needed with some units, but not nearly enough to be as important as macroing).
Uh you still need to control your units late game, but the fact that the balance between micro/macro tips in macros favour doesnt bother me at all, once you get into extreme lategame suddenly the macro aspect is all but gone, just as it is in early game.
On September 05 2007 23:46 lololol wrote: Yes, BW is a macro game and SC2 needs to tip the balance in favor of micro and MBS and automining are the right choice.
Err, No, Starcraft is about expanding your base to cover the map, building large armies and clashing them together and effectivly being in charge of a war machine, not moving a few units around and killing everything with them.
On September 05 2007 23:46 lololol wrote: Yes, BW is a macro game and SC2 needs to tip the balance in favor of micro and MBS and automining are the right choice.
Err, No, Starcraft is about expanding your base to cover the map, building large armies and clashing them together and effectivly being in charge of a war machine, not moving a few units around and killing everything with them.
I think the solution has been posted before, and that is keep MBS and automine but introduce new strictly macro tasks that are very difficult to execute perfectly without compromising some micro, more than just warpgates. It's the guys at Blizz that have the creativity to come up with them, but I really think it's the only way to satisfy both pro and anti MBS and automine players.
EPT
That's a good one... in Starcraft, basically, in order to "use" your troops you need to do a tedious action first that is quite out of place (it does require more skill but it is something stupid). So why not just remove it.
