|
On January 04 2008 20:25 Zanno wrote:
As much as you might dislike the idea I can guarantee you that it's in the same folder as smartcasting - it's completely non-negotiable. Blizzard would get so much flak for removing this from a modern RTS game, not to mention it was already in warcraft 3. You can hypothesize all the negative skilll-denegrating effects you like, but it's simply not worth discussing.
Can we keep this kind of stuff out of these threads? If you don't have an argument for or against the feature being discussed, don't even post. "They'll include it anyway so let's not discuss it" really seems like a last-ditch attempt by people supporting a feature because they're newb. You have no logical reason to support it (other than you want to be able to compete against people out of your league), so instead of making a point you say that it doesn't matter cause it'll be in anyway.
We've already discussed the fact that Blizzard doesn't care and won't be affected by the reviews of a couple idiots at some game magazines. They are going to sell the game to everyone who enjoys RTS games simply because they're Blizzard and they're making a new RTS. This thread is for discussing the pros and cons of auto-mining. If you'd like to discuss "things to fill the time if they include more automation than SC1," please make a separate thread on that. Don't try to derail this thread by saying the thread is completely pointless.
|
I for one am both pro-MBS and pro auto-mine.
- Auto-mine and MBS will emphasize different aspects of macro than previously. In Starcraft II timing will be far more crucial than in Starcraft I. Scenarios where top level players sit around with a couple of hundred extra minerals/gas for a minute or two will be virtually non existant. Today, it's normal to see players -- even on a professional level -- having 500-1000 minerals in mid game and sometimes even more than that late game. Mindless building selection spam and key spam APM (zzzzz - zealot, mmmmmm, marine) will be replaced with the APM of mathematical and meticulous attention to supply limit, production level capabilities (how many facs, raxs, gates are optimal?), unit mixes, expanding aggressively, instant maynarding into optimal amount of workers at each expansion and much more things we probably can't imagine.
- As pointed out in my previous argument, Starcraft II will almost surely feature more aggressive expansion patterns. If the game lasts through the Han Bang phases of early game I predict players to expand much more agressively into mid and late game. Having enough minerals as a Protoss to instantly build 5-6 canons at the time of a 2nd expansion going up against a Zerg will -- unlike in Starcraft I -- be seen as sign of weak macro. In general, spending too much resources on static defence will be redundant and seen as a sign of weak micro. Regard it in the light of recent development in the pro scence, such as Savior's often mocked but justified reluctance to use static defence in excess. He's only doing it in order to achieve maximal efficiency. Starcraft II will similarly delay the time at which turtling in your expansions with massive amounts canons/sunkens will be an efficient use of minerals. Maps will probably be mined out in a faster rate and make marathon games shorter and more scarce than in Starcraft I. What took 1 hour to do in the prequel should only take 45 minutes when spreading through the map like an incarnation of the Zerg Swarm.
- While I can admit that macroing will be slightly easier (even though I believe players will find ways to compensate for it as stated in the two above arguments), I CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO COMPREHEND HOW THAT WOULD MEAN THERE TO BE LESS MULTITASKING . Everyone who talks about multitasking as if it were only a matter of macro in must be stupid. Or confusing the two. Scenarios such as those of Starcraft I TvZ and ZvP will probably be normal. Players attacking and harassing at multiple fronts. Boxer's 3 way M&M drop won't be the stuff of legends anymore. But his future 5 way M&M drops might very well be.
Of course, this is all just theorycrafting. But I much prefer to theorycraft around possibilities as opposed to "NO!!! MBS WILL SHIFT MY 300 APM PROPORTIONALITY FROM 200 MACRO/100 MICRO TO 100 MACRO/200 MICRO!!! Therefore and only therefore am I opposed to it!".
What I don't think you all realise is that those 100 extra APMs supposedly shifted from macro to micro will be just as much, if not more, of an indicator of skill in the game as those 100 extra APMs worth of mostly imaginary macro that professionals produce today. Multitasking at 2-3 (even if it's with 1 major and multiple minor armies) fronts while at the same time worker raiding and macroing is just as much multitasking as pressing 1a2a3a4a, going back and selecting every gateway individually while spamming d and z etc...
|
On January 04 2008 22:59 LonelyMargarita wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2008 20:25 Zanno wrote:
As much as you might dislike the idea I can guarantee you that it's in the same folder as smartcasting - it's completely non-negotiable. Blizzard would get so much flak for removing this from a modern RTS game, not to mention it was already in warcraft 3. You can hypothesize all the negative skilll-denegrating effects you like, but it's simply not worth discussing. Can we keep this kind of stuff out of these threads? If you don't have an argument for or against the feature being discussed, don't even post. "They'll include it anyway so let's not discuss it" really seems like a last-ditch attempt by people supporting a feature because they're newb. You have no logical reason to support it (other than you want to be able to compete against people out of your league), so instead of making a point you say that it doesn't matter cause it'll be in anyway. We've already discussed the fact that Blizzard doesn't care and won't be affected by the reviews of a couple idiots at some game magazines. They are going to sell the game to everyone who enjoys RTS games simply because they're Blizzard and they're making a new RTS. This thread is for discussing the pros and cons of auto-mining. If you'd like to discuss "things to fill the time if they include more automation than SC1," please make a separate thread on that. Don't try to derail this thread by saying the thread is completely pointless. It's more about picking and choosing your battles. MBS is worth debating, weaker spells are worth debating, superunits are worth debating, attempting to argue this one when the beta test rolls around will only lead your credibility being shot and your opinion being ignored.
I say this because during the Warcraft 3 beta there were a lot of people who raised good points about the flaws in the game design, but their feedback got completely glossed over because they were too extreme and wanted things like automining and the entire hero levelling system removed. This is why I get so indignant in these sorts of threads, I was heavily active in both War3 betas and I feel like this constant nitpicking of every single major and minor UI change is going to lead to history repeating and end up ruining SC2 in the long run.
When the beta test rolls out, attempting to argue against this one will make you look like a fool in the face of whoever's reading the feedback in the game dev department. They will assume you want nothing out of the game except for Starcraft 1 with prettier graphics and that you will never be satisifed until the game is exactly the same, and thus they will ignore your feedback. I'm not talking out of my ass, I know this from experience, this is exactly what happened in War3 beta. There's your logic in why it's not worth debating - it will ruin your credibility when it comes to issues like MBS that may actually be important to cut. Happy?
Blizzard is attemping to juggle accessability with skill and this is one element of the game design, along with smartcasting, where the need to make the game accessable outweighs the need for a high skill ceiling.
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 04 2008 20:25 Zanno wrote:
As much as you might dislike the idea I can guarantee you that it's in the same folder as smartcasting - it's completely non-negotiable. Blizzard would get so much flak for removing this from a modern RTS game, not to mention it was already in warcraft 3. You can hypothesize all the negative skilll-denegrating effects you like, but it's simply not worth discussing. WC3 has almost zero expanding compared with SC, it's not really a useful comparison.
And you talk about it as if Blizzard is under pressure from other RTS games to implement UI changes, even if it hurts gameplay. That's really not the case. Blizzard IS the RTS market, they don't need to follow the guidelines set by AoE or CnC, because those two games are nothing compared to SC2 and WC3. They'll add it or remove it because they think it's best for gameplay, not because they're worried about taking flak for not being "modern", because no other company really matters besides them. And terrible game reviewers certainly aren't ones who should determine game balance either.
|
@ LaLuSh
Uhm wait, you didn't tell us how these 100 extra APM shift from macro to micro. As soon as you did that we can start arguing your point.
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 05 2008 00:07 ForAdun wrote:
@ LaLuSh
Uhm wait, you didn't tell us how these 100 extra APM shift from macro to micro. As soon as you did that we can start arguing your point. He's saying MBS will cut back on macro significantly, but the game will still be good and APM will still be high because the micro will play a major role.
Boxer's drop ships might be pretty but it's not multi tasking, and even SC2 devs have said they don't want SC2 to be a micro based game.
|
What about adding a switch that lets the computer automatically build worker after worker for you? Like auto-interceptor-building.
I bet the game designers thought about that  I think we should and will be happy with what we're getting.
|
I am absolutly against this "automining" ; i cant really explain why, but.....i dont know why u need it..it just makes things alot easier and easier isnt always best, mbs/"smartcast" is probably a different story as sc2 will ve more units with "special" moves
|
On January 05 2008 00:14 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2008 00:07 ForAdun wrote:
@ LaLuSh
Uhm wait, you didn't tell us how these 100 extra APM shift from macro to micro. As soon as you did that we can start arguing your point. He's saying MBS will cut back on macro significantly, but the game will still be good and APM will still be high because the micro will play a major role. Boxer's drop ships might be pretty but it's not multi tasking, and even SC2 devs have said they don't want SC2 to be a micro based game.
No I asked how these extra 100 APM shift from macro to micro. How they transfer. Normally if something's gone it's gone. Why not in this case? That's what I want to know from him and then it's possible to talk back.
|
On January 05 2008 00:07 ForAdun wrote:
@ LaLuSh
Uhm wait, you didn't tell us how these 100 extra APM shift from macro to micro. As soon as you did that we can start arguing your point.
No. I Guess I didn't just tell you about expanding agressively, attacking at multiple fronts while worker raiding and harassing. I guess I didn't just tell you about meticulous attention paid to production and maynarding. About the fact that simplifying macro tasks would only speed up ACTUAL macro mid and late game into a literal race for resources that would shorten and scarcen the amount of lengthy games.
Guess I didn't just give an over the top example of Boxer 5 way M&M-dropping to make the point comprehensible even for people like you (fundamentalists).
Let's make a bet right here and now. Who thinks players' APM will generally drop in Starcraft 2? Because that's what you're arguing, aren't you?
I find it hard to believe that people will actually decrease in APM as Starcraft 2 arrives. I rather believe, as stated in my previous comment, that they will find other ways of utilizing those actions in the sequel. Much like the way Bisu expands while harassing at multiple fronts. Or the way Mind splits his army in TvZ and cuts off the zerg while taking out expos and at the same time prepares dropships to bypass the dark swarms. Things like those will be the trademarks of good players in Starcraft 2. Not many players but the best of the Neo-Gens can actually handle harassing, attacking and securing expansions at the same time today. That's what seperates say bisu's PvZ from Storks.
What's your bet then? I'll take it.
So... There's my explanation. What's your counter?
|
On January 05 2008 00:26 LaLuSh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2008 00:07 ForAdun wrote:
@ LaLuSh
Uhm wait, you didn't tell us how these 100 extra APM shift from macro to micro. As soon as you did that we can start arguing your point. No. I Guess I didn't just tell you about expanding agressively, attacking at multiple fronts while worker raiding and harassing. I guess I didn't just tell you about meticulous attention to production and maynarding. About the fact that simplifying macro tasks would only speed up ACTUAL macro mid and late game into a literal race for resources that would shorten and scarcen the amount of lengthy games. Guess I didn't just give an over the top example of Boxer 5 way M&M-dropping to make the point comprehensible even for people like you (fundamentalists). Let's make a bet right here and now. Who thinks players' APM will generally drop in Starcraft 2? Because that's what you're arguing, aren't you? I find it hard to believe that people will actually decrease in APM as Starcraft 2 arrives. I rather believe, as stated in my previous comment, that they will find other ways of utilizing those actions in the sequel. What's your bet? I'll take it. So... There's my explanation. What's your counter?
I see. First of all let me tell you I'm not a fundamentalist . Before you start arguing with me you should agree that we aren't getting personal in here, otherwise I'll simply leave you out of my argumentation even if you respond directly to my posts.
Now to your argumentation.
- Expanding aggressively, attacking at multiple fronts while working raiding and harassing, meticulous attention to production and maynarding:
This is already the case in SC. Watch progamers play. The better they are at it the better statistics they have. Sea, Stork and Savior are good examples.
- Simplifying macro tasks speed up actual macro (? -> all macro is "actual") mid and late game into a literal race for resources:
Already the case in SC.
- Example about Boxer and "5 way m&m dropping":
Sorry, I don't see the relation.
I don't bet. My opinion based on experience with competitive SC is that in SC2 multitasking (not neccessarily APM; but perhaps that, too) will decrease.
Now, would you explain to me how 100 APM shift from macro to micro, please?
|
[QUOTE]On January 05 2008 00:46 ForAdun wrote:
[QUOTE]On January 05 2008 00:26 LaLuSh wrote:
[QUOTE]On January 05 2008 00:07 ForAdun wrote:
Now, would you explain to me how 100 APM shift from macro to micro, please?[/QUOTE]because with abilities like ghost snipe and stalker blink it looks like they're trying to create a game where every single unit needs to be microed as carefully as a warcraft 3 hero unit
regardless of whether or not you like warcraft 3 you gotta admit a game where you controlled 20 death knights would be pretty nuts
|
I don't actually and literally mean Micro APM will increase by 100 in relation to Macro APM.
That was just a way of illustrating that MBS and Auto-mine won't affect the level of multitasking in Starcraft 2. You will still have LOTS and LOTS of things to attend to. I don't personally think that there will be that much of a difference. As I argued, simplifying macro tasks will only speed up the actual macro mid and late game. Expansions will be taken more aggressively at the exact moment they can be afforded. Looking at progamers today when OGN and MSL has those resource counters showing they often idle with 500-1500 minerals mid game and sometimes even more late game.
Good players will have a much more varied mix of units as opposed to casual gamers (also a source of extra macro in building them, and micro, in using them). As a player secures macro advantage defensive and production structures will probably be spammed instead of just stacking up minerals after one has gone and gotten his/her psi limit filled. Remember, we haven't even TRIED the game. What do we know? Things like movable canons, nydus worms and phaseprisms might be spammed in order to gain map control and end games fast in the future. Those are NEW and unforseen aspects of macro that we haven't even given an inkling of thought into.
What I'm trying to say is: We won't know anything for sure before we get our hands on the game. That's why to me, it's only sensible to take the positive approach to MBS and automining. It's only sensible to speculate as to how it might evolve game play and strategy. Why not at least try it before condemning it?
It's like arguing to someone in 16th century Italy about the Earth not being flat. With you representing the Church and banning all further research into the subject without even spending as much as one second entertaining the hypothesis that it MIGHT be true. MBS and Auto-mining might enhance the game, but it just doesn't fit with the opinion on how APM should be distributed in the views of the fundamentalist Starcrafter who prefers the old and proven methods of ecumenically determining the shape of the Earth.
And the Lord sayeth: Thou shall not have two Starcraft clicks before my eight!
*Edit: Sorry for the last part. Wrote this before I read your post ForAdun. I will keep my future posts insult-free.
However, in response to one of your arguments; Although I agree with you that progamers today already pay meticulous attention to all those things I listed. There is still the issue of why then the players still are improving? I mean, Garimto was paying meticulous attention to everything 7 years ago too, wasn't he? There is always room for improvement. Nada's 400 APM a couple of years ago weren't as efficient as they are today, are they?
I want you to understand that I'm arguing that macro will evolve in Starcraft II much in the way it has in Starcraft I during all these years. I mean, you would rarely see more than 2 expansions during the Garimto years before the game ended, would you?
That's the way I imagine Auto-mine and MBS to improve macro and multitasking in SC2. By simplifying it they will only make it more effective. More perfected. Much like APM in professional Starcraft has remained constant for a couple of years with multitasking and macro evidently improving.
|
On January 05 2008 00:04 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2008 22:59 LonelyMargarita wrote:On January 04 2008 20:25 Zanno wrote:
As much as you might dislike the idea I can guarantee you that it's in the same folder as smartcasting - it's completely non-negotiable. Blizzard would get so much flak for removing this from a modern RTS game, not to mention it was already in warcraft 3. You can hypothesize all the negative skilll-denegrating effects you like, but it's simply not worth discussing. Can we keep this kind of stuff out of these threads? If you don't have an argument for or against the feature being discussed, don't even post. "They'll include it anyway so let's not discuss it" really seems like a last-ditch attempt by people supporting a feature because they're newb. You have no logical reason to support it (other than you want to be able to compete against people out of your league), so instead of making a point you say that it doesn't matter cause it'll be in anyway. We've already discussed the fact that Blizzard doesn't care and won't be affected by the reviews of a couple idiots at some game magazines. They are going to sell the game to everyone who enjoys RTS games simply because they're Blizzard and they're making a new RTS. This thread is for discussing the pros and cons of auto-mining. If you'd like to discuss "things to fill the time if they include more automation than SC1," please make a separate thread on that. Don't try to derail this thread by saying the thread is completely pointless. It's more about picking and choosing your battles.
It's fine by me if you don't want to debate this. Just don't post in this thread. I'm not losing any 'credibility' - I'm the one using logic and making valid arguments for/against features - you are not ("let's drop it because it doesn't matter").
|
It shifts, in theory, when you have more free time that you can use using your units special habilities, positioning them, and overall using all the extra time you have making the use of your army more efficient.
|
On January 05 2008 01:16 LaLuSh wrote:
I don't actually and literally mean Micro APM will increase by 100 in relation to Macro APM.
Well then don't say it. Because you did say it.
That was just a way of illustrating that MBS and Auto-mine won't affect the level of multitasking in Starcraft 2. You will still have LOTS and LOTS of things to attend to. I don't personally think that there will be that much of a difference.
What is "lots and lots of things"? Why don't you make a list? PS: It must be a list that does not contain stuff that already exists in SC.
Your following argument is not an answer to my new post, I've already argued against it in a previous post and you couldn't find a new argument.
As I argued, simplifying macro tasks will only speed up the actual macro mid and late game. Expansions will be taken more aggressively at the exact moment they can be afforded. Good players will have a much more varied mix of units as opposed to casual gamers (also a source of extra macro). As a player secures macro advantage defensive and production structures will probably be spammed instead of just stacking up minerals after one has gone and gotten his/her psi limit filled.
This is all the case in SC. You can't use that as an argument. I don't want to say that again.
Remember, we haven't even TRIED the game. What do we know? Things like movable canons, nydus worms and phaseprisms might be spammed in order to gain map control and end games fast in the future. Those are NEW and unforseen aspects of macro that we haven't even given an inkling of thought into.
You know what? I can't even argue against that because it's too speculative. If you want me to be able to argue with you you must only take facts or probabilities into consideration. If you first start speculating to make an assumption you can't make a valid point.
What I'm trying to say is: We won't know anything for sure before we get our hands on the game. That's why to me, it's only sensible to take the positive approach to MBS and automining. It's only sensible to speculate as to how it might evolve game play and strategy. Why not at least try it before condemning it?
But you're arguing with us...? No I don't really want an answer to that, you know exactly what I mean.
It's like arguing to someone in 16th century Italy about the Earth not being flat. With you representing the Church and banning all further research into the subject without even spending as much as one second entertaining the hypothesis that it MIGHT be true. MBS and Auto-mining might enhance the game, but it just doesn't fit with the opinion on how APM should be distributed in the views of the fundamentalist Starcrafter who prefers the old and proven methods of ecumenically determining the shape of the Earth.
And the Lord sayeth: Thou shall not have two Starcraft clicks before my eight!
This - as you might know - is complete BS. Sorry, I really don't mean to be offensive. The analogy is just retarted.
And for gods sake stop saying we're all biased. You don't know us, alright?
We're arguing here, don't you realize that? If you still think we're just fundamentalists crying about how SC will die and whatnot you're very very ignorant. We know a lot about SC so we certainly know some things about SC2, too. We aren't biased, we are experienced.
Accept it and then argue with us, try to be productive and don't anger us unneccessarily. Is that ok?
[QUOTE]On January 05 2008 01:15 Zanno wrote:
[QUOTE]On January 05 2008 00:46 ForAdun wrote:
[QUOTE]On January 05 2008 00:26 LaLuSh wrote:
[QUOTE]On January 05 2008 00:07 ForAdun wrote:
Now, would you explain to me how 100 APM shift from macro to micro, please?[/QUOTE]because with abilities like ghost snipe and stalker blink it looks like they're trying to create a game where every single unit needs to be microed as carefully as a warcraft 3 hero unit
regardless of whether or not you like warcraft 3 you gotta admit a game where you controlled 20 death knights would be pretty nuts[/QUOTE]
Do you know how hard it is to control vessels, tanks and 3 groups of m&m's? That's the easiest scenario in a TvZ late game.
Progamers can handle that in random situations all over the map even without the use of shortkeys while planting spider mines everywhere and preparing drops.
Talking about "careful" micro and "pretty nuts".
|
On January 04 2008 14:21 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Pros:
- Gives players more time to focus on battle and thus being able to control bigger armies which would be good for tv broadcasts and make the game more fun to play.
- Less focus on multitasking and more focus on the managing the important aspects of your base such as choosing which buildings to build, etc.
- Makes game flow better, no attention losses on important battles, etc, to have to go back to base and worry about workers, makes bases "cleaner" will less random workers lying around.
So what do you guys think?
How is less multi-tasking in a game like Starcraft listed as pro?
It's basically the multi-tasking (and some other stuff) which separates the macro/micro gameplay of SC from the micro-heavy WC3 where multi-tasking isn't as important.
Taking away auto-mining is essentially the same as implementing MBS, it dumbs the game down and makes it easier and the result will probably be less appeal to professional gamers.
|
On January 05 2008 02:22 JensOfSweden wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2008 14:21 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Pros:
- Gives players more time to focus on battle and thus being able to control bigger armies which would be good for tv broadcasts and make the game more fun to play.
- Less focus on multitasking and more focus on the managing the important aspects of your base such as choosing which buildings to build, etc.
- Makes game flow better, no attention losses on important battles, etc, to have to go back to base and worry about workers, makes bases "cleaner" will less random workers lying around.
So what do you guys think? How is less multi-tasking in a game like Starcraft listed as pro?
I think the arguement is that less APM for something = more APM for other things = better. We're just basically arguing for which aspect of the game is more important or fun.
|
I think hand speed and multitasking will still play a large role. But instead of using your APM for mindless mechanical things such as building workers and checking on them every 40 seconds you now can focus more on mental things such as building and defense placement, army positioning, proper tank spreading, what have you. People mechanically superior will still have a huge advantage, but their actions won't be spent on robot like mechanics.
|
Arguing for automining and MBS and the like, I think is just a way of limiting yourself. The skill level in SC is still increasing over all these years because if you are faster, you can do more things and there are always more things to do. With MBS and automining the amount of things to do will be less and even if that leaves room for more important things, there is still LESS things to do and thats a fact. With less things to do, the game will be easier to master and then eventually it will get boring since everyone is as good as everyone else (ok perhaps not boring but not AS exciting)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
