EPT[D] Auto-Mining? - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
XCetron
5226 Posts
| ||
|
naventus
United States1337 Posts
Everyone that posts in the SC2 forum should be forced to upload replays of them playing SC. Then we will know how much they understand about the game. Everyone should ignore posts by people who clearly have no fucking clue (aka playing SC means 4v4 BGH + VODs by shitty commentators like klazfag). If we get some yays for this idea, I (or someone else) should make a new thread: "Prove Your SC2 Posting Worth". | ||
|
Loverman
Romania266 Posts
First off not auto-mining or MBS is the problem but finding something to replace them so a macro oriented player can still win. Second off, I seriously doubt there won't be auto-mining in SC 2... Just think of the smaller mineral patches that have a higher yield, they would require less "care" by default (with or with-out auto-mining). Again to all people going on a rant against auto-mining and MBS, those are not the issues. The issue is: finding a system that will allow players with good macro and decent micro to play toe-to-toe vs players with decent macro and good micro. To sum it up, there has to be a posibility for Oov-like players to win games by better resource and base management and faster unit production. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
On January 05 2008 17:57 zulu_nation8 wrote: I AM KIDDDING, THIS THREAD WAS MADE FOR TROLLING. All you pro MBS noobies who have 90 apm and want to make the game easier please ban yourselves if you're actually entertaining th idea of auto-mining. "mindless multi-tasking" rofl. I've never seen such a group of people so pathetic and in so much denial of their incompetence that they don't even know they're arguing for something very simple: TO MAKE THE GAME EASIER FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN NOT MULTITASK. Multitasking is not the same as apm, it's a skill that comes with experience so essentially pro-mbs people are the equivalent of a bunch of high school dropouts wanting to get paid the same as people with PHDs, you guys never put in the effort and/or are too stupid to learn so therefore you want to make things easier the next time around. If you don't want to decrease the amount of multi-tasking, why support MBS? So you can have more armies to play with? So people can build more shit? Is 200 units not enough for you? Progaming not exciting enough? Do these reasons really seem more credible than the obvious fact that MBS will give you less shit to do and that's really what you want? Sounds like you're scared of something. It's not really that big of a deal if your multitask and apm are so much better than ours already, right? | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
And JensOfSweden: Of course I'm sarcastically rude towards someone who is venting opinions as arguments. Can you really claim any of ForAduns statements to actually be backed up by sound arguments? And how would YOU respond to sentences like: "This is already the case in SC." x10 in every response thus far. "controlling 3 vessels M&M [...] is the easiest part of TvZ lategame". "You can't use that and that as an argument because I say so". Explain to me how those constitute arguments rather than unrefutable opinions and claims. There is no way of sensibly discussing a topic when sentences like those are being used as arguments. Just look at the difference of soulseras post and every post from ForAdun. There's a BIG difference. Going back to soulseras now: Back when Boxer and Garimto were noobing it up, expanding was seen as a major risk and was to be avoided unless necessary. The game evolved as a result of people pushing different boundaries. You can accredit many micro tricks used by terran (especially splitting up marines against lurkers) to Boxer playing around with and pushing his micro. I'm not sure who started playing around with expansions and economy to be honest, but it was based off of what he discovered that caused the rate of expansions to increase. Of course, running more expansions requires you to have more concentration on each expansion because as far as sc1 ui limitations dictate, you have to hop back to each nexus/command center/hatchery to produce a peon, come back just before or after it's finished, send it to a mineral patch, and queue up another one. Most people do not hotkey their nexuses/command centers/hatcheries for the sole purpose of being able to build peons out of them. Automining takes one step out of that whole process, sending the miner to the patch. In sc1, not doing that means your economy is not going to quicken, and the game in a sense 'punishes' you for not multitasking quick enough. In fact, this new process almost rewards queuing up multiple peons and just letting the expo sit there for awhile, what with the extra micro and micro based multitasking that you're broadcasting. So I've gone through all of that, but how is it going to prove that it's not going to increase the rate of expansions? From a game play perspective, it's not going to be safe to time the expansions sooner. I may sound like people did back then, but going off of current information, and not speculation is all that I can currently do. In fact, with these changes, it seems that the process of expanding becomes easier, but that doesn't make securing an expansion any easier than it was before. Professionals in sc1 currently time their expansions very well, based on when they'll be safe and most benefit from it. An extreme example would be that you don't see many people 14cc expand in tvt, even though that would certainly be expanding more aggressively and often than the current game situation shows. Those are very valid arguments. I agree with you that a lot of the development in Starcraft can be attributed to better micro, better strategies/Build Orders. But I believe those mostly account for the early game FE-builds. Not the more rapid rate at which players expand mid and late game. Expansion patterns mid and late game tend to be more chaotic and based on players' ability to macro while doing all that other stuff. If macroing gets easier it's only logical to assume expansion patterns mid and late game will speed up. But yes, it's speculative. I'm basing it off of the development in Starcraft. And better macro has throughout these 10 years shown a more rapid pattern of expanding mid and late game. There's no denying that. Of course we cannot know right now how the timing of safe expansions will manifest themselves in Starcraft II. I know it's hard to keep in mind everything that someone else has written throughout the span of a thread. But I pointed out I was only referring to Mid and Late game macro. Early game openings are limited and controlled by the potential use of Han Bang strategies (all-in low econ strategies). They much resemble openings in Chess. There's a limited amount of optimal openings for a game of Chess. There won't be much of a change there. Mid and Late game though, takes on a more chaotic pattern and extends your future possibilities. I also see the point you are making in your second paragraph. Auto-mining rewards queing up workers. My way of addressing that was to argue that Starcraft II would be much more timing based. Queing up 200 minerals is not a good way of macroing in Starcraft II. Meticulous attention will be payed to optimal production patterns and expansion patterns. Queing up 12 workers on say 3 expansions won't be the most optimal course of action. Building 1 Scv each and starting a new expansion would be the optimal way of using those 600 minerals. Or perhaps building units for them. In relation to Starcraft I, yes, queing up 5 workers at your expansion will be rewarded. But if we imagine how the game might evolve. We can state that it probably isn't the optimal course as compared to someone only building 1 worker and a calculated factory, barrack or an expansion without queing up minerals into various units. Optimal macro will always punish you for queing up units. That's how I predict macro to evolve in SC2. That is my argument. Queing up better spent minerals elsewhere will be punished! 5 zealots and 3 stalkers in queu late game in SC2 will hopefully be a sign of weak macro rather than a sign of how much Auto-mining and MBS sucks. I admit. Speculative. But worth considering nonetheless. It's not as far fetched as it sounds. | ||
|
naventus
United States1337 Posts
They just do fast DT [drop] or 3 Gate all in and hope to win. Given that these openings are somewhat a response to the current metagame of Terran FE, they are still examples of extremely gay openings that are possible for inferior players to execute because toss early on is not very mechanically demanding (exceptions maybe being reaver harass + base management). Whether or not this is a completely bad thing is debatable, but it's not clear to me why a game with fewer mechanical requirements early on (read: how many "multi-front" battles are you going to have in the first 8 minutes? 2?) is a good thing. You might even argue that most of the strategy in SC comes from the the early-mid game, where there are naturally fewer things to manage, because that's when you are making most of the big economic/military decisions. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
On January 05 2008 19:24 naventus wrote: It's already half the case with all the newbtosses that have perfect control for the first 8 minutes and not enough ability to play proficiently in the mid game. They just do fast DT [drop] or 3 Gate all in and hope to win. Given that these openings are somewhat a response to the current metagame of Terran FE, they are still examples of extremely gay openings that are possible for inferior players to execute because toss early on is not very mechanically demanding (exceptions maybe being reaver harass + base management). Whether or not this is a completely bad thing is debatable, but it's not clear to me why a game with fewer mechanical requirements early on (read: how many "multi-front" battles are you going to have in the first 8 minutes? 2?) is a good thing. You might even argue that most of the strategy in SC comes from the the early-mid game, where there are naturally fewer things to manage, because that's when you are making most of the big economic/military decisions. This is a problem I agree with. Early game and early mid game will probably be much less mechanically dependent as opposed to SC. The amount of players who can perform optimally within the time span of early game will probably increase as a result of Auto-mining and MBS. Good point I hadn't really considered. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
I don't mean to be condescending but you're absolutely wrong "Expansion patterns mid and late game tend to be more chaotic and based on players' ability to macro while doing all that other stuff." Players expand when they are able to by having a large enough army and map control, not because they can multi-task better. "And better macro has throughout these 10 years shown a more rapid pattern of expanding mid and late game." This is just LOL "Optimal macro will always punish you for queing up units. That's how I predict macro to evolve in SC2. That is my argument. Queing up better spent minerals elsewhere will be punished! 5 zealots and 3 stalkers in queu late game in SC2 will hopefully be a sign of weak macro rather than a sign of how much Auto-mining and MBS sucks." Oh really? MBS will punish queing units, cuz SBS doesn't do that right, what MBS doesn't do is punish people who can't multi-task, do you think that's a stronger argument than MBS will punish people queing up units? LaLuSh if you haven't played a couple thousand of games of BW and watched a couple hundred of Progaming games like almost everyone on this forum then you simply shouldn't be posting about MBS, yes I am being very mean because you deserve it. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
Let's see here, how the hell am I supposed to respond to this?: I don't mean to be condescending but you're absolutely wrong Yeah. Thank you for telling me I am wrong. WHY am I wrong? May I ask that? Where are your arguments? My claim: Improved macro and multitasking is to thank for players being more aggressive in taking expansions mid and late game nowadays as compared to 7 years ago, not micro and BOs. My arguments: How come people rarely kept more than 2 expansions before winning those days? Is it because they had worse micro ? Does that make sense? If I am wrong that must be what you are claiming to be true, isn't it? People didn't take more expansions because they had bad micro?! It's not people like me who shouldn't be lasting long on a forum like this. It's people like you. Players expand when they are able to by having a large enough army and map control, not because they can multi-task better. And you base this on what? Explain it to me please. So people back in 2000 didn't have large enough armies and good enough map control, that's why they didn't expand as fast as today? AH, I see now! How does that even make sense? Evolved multitasking and macro makes a player faster. How else would "large enough armies" appear faster today than they did 7-8 years ago? By magic? Where are your arguments? This is just LOL Thank you. That is another stunning observation. I feel blessed to be discussing these matters with a person of such sharp wits. Not a single explanation or argument, just a claim. I wish my mind had a one way channel link to God too. Oh really? MBS will punish queing units, cuz SBS doesn't do that right, what MBS doesn't do is punish people who can't multi-task, do you think that's a stronger argument than MBS will punish people queing up units? Wow. This is a real argument. This I can actually respond to. Good point actually. I can't refute that SBS doesn't do the same thing. I can only claim that macro will evolve the same way as it has done in Starcraft. I must give into your claim that MBS will be less demanding than SBS would have been in the same situation. But my arguments never were about that. They instead argue that macro and multitasking will be taken to a new kind of extreme level in SC2. Where Timing is crucial to everything you do. "But this is already the case in SC...". Yes, I know. But Starcraft players today are in no way near perfection are they? How come they keep evolving if they are perfect? Simplifying UI will evolve and perfect macro/multitasking much like it is continually being perfected in today's Starcraft. MBS and Auto-mining won't noobify the game and make it a casual gamer's dream game. It will only cause it to leap forward 2-3 years in evolution from the viewpoint of SBS, but without all the effort and hard work. That's really the issue that I feel we are discussing right now. The fact that players' APMs have remained pretty much constant the past couple of years coupled with the fact that they evidently have improved tremendously when it comes to macro and multitasking, is IMO an indication that improved efficiency in multitasking and macro causes the game to speed up and reach a higher skill level. Not for it to noobify itself and become a casual gamer's dream game. Improved actual macro (not APM) by simplifying the UI will cause other aspects of the game to be emphasized. It will speed up the evolution that SBS would have undergone by itself and reached in maybe 4-5 years from now. Only, by then, MBS will probably have undergone an even greater evolution. The issue at hand, as I see it is: Whether or not you as a person believe there to be a "skill cap" in Starcraft and Starcraft 2. Whether or not the game has reached the roof or if the ceiling in fact is as high as the sky. So that MBS and Auto-mining too, will leave sufficient room for practice and skill to PAY OFF. I believe Starcraft has a far wider skill cap than we can imagine. And that MBS/auto-mining will help the game surpass anything that SBS could have achieved. But it's really nothing we can know for sure. Anyway. Don't think I'll be posting much more in this thread. Has been a good discussion with some of you (especially soulseras and that last remark from zulu_nation). It really just boils down to whether the game can continue to evolve and raise it skill cap despite the implementation of MBS and Auto-mining. Zulu_nation, by the way. I have been a member here for much longer than you. Even though I haven't written in the forums, I have checked in here ever since 2002. Also, I quit playing 2004-2006, but I can assure you I have played my share of games in my time. And I have followed progaming since it's early years. | ||
|
Latham
9560 Posts
1) Auto-mining 2) Multi Building Selection 3) Smart Casting I fear all 3 will be implemented into SC II. Don't get me wrong, sure make the game more newbie friendly but not too much. IMO the essence and the magic of Starcraft is that the best players can control their units insanely well, macro without MBS, clone their units with special skills and manage their base (send workers to mine, build, repair etc etc etc.) Now I'm almost 100% sure smart casting is in (Like when you have 2 vessels and hit the "I" key to irradiate only 1 will irradiate) so that takes somewhat the awe out of starcraft. I don't have anything against any of the 3 aspects above of the game alone but for such a complicated game as Starcraft is, where base management, unit micro and macro/expanding is VERY improtant I think implementing all 3 is a mistake. Letting the computer build and manage the base for you is a little too much for me. please remember that there are player that prefer to macro then micro. There are people that try to offset their inability to have insane micro with better macro then the opponent has. I know you will say: implementing all 3 of these aspects won't have any impact on the strategy part of the game or the skill part. I agree with the strategy part because I think we both understand the word strategy as "out-smarting your opponent; buidling the counter units; using the enviroment to your advantage etc" so implementing all 3 of those aspects won't change a thing here. But we have different definitions of skill: Mine is "skill in starcraft is to effectively manage all parts of the game cited above better then your opponent" and yours is "out smarting your opponent by using superior tactics" The auto-mining is a double-edged sword in my option. It both numbs down the micro part of spliting workers and the macro part of managing your base correctly (or at least better then your opponent) but I think it should be implemented finally =\ even thought IMO it's "skill" to take the take the time to visit each base every 1 minute or so to make the workers work AND not forget about it throughout out all the game's length. But take a second to think about the people who prefer to macro because they can't micro so well many units. You're basically stripping them of their chance to get even with the more micro oriented player by implementing MBS. I know I know "but they'll have smart-casting too! So our advantage of better micro is stripped also!" But really ask yourself is it completely gone? You can still better micro your Zealots against his lings or dance your Hydras around his Zealots. While you press say "1"(where you have all your pretty 20 gateways binded) and just spam for 2 seconds the "z" key to have hordes of zealots waiting for your commands while they are still at a disadvantage on the micro part despite having smart-casting! I'm no game developper, and maybe I don't know what Starcraft is really about and I might not have the slightest idea of what I just wrote about, but that's your option. As all the above was mine. I think that implementing ALL 3 ASPECTS will be a big mistake on Blizzards part. I think they have to choose what to implement from those 3. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
"Yeah. Thank you for telling me I am wrong. WHY am I wrong? May I ask that? Where are your arguments? My claim: Improved macro and multitasking is to thank for players being more aggressive in taking expansions mid and late game nowadays as compared to 7 years ago, not micro and BOs." Progamers have more expansions because the maps now actually have more expansions on them. omg! Therefore the games longer and people have more money and units. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Players expand when they are able to by having a large enough army and map control, not because they can multi-task better. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "And you base this on what? Explain it to me please. So people back in 2000 didn't have large enough armies and good enough map control, that's why they didn't expand as fast as today? AH, I see now! How does that even make sense? Evolved multitasking and macro makes a player faster. How else would "large enough armies" appear faster today than they did 7-8 years ago? By magic? Where are your arguments?" My arguments are that youre dumb and stupid. On Lost Temple how often would you see 150 vs 150 battles, not often? How often do you see 150 vs 150 battles on Luna, pretty often? What do you think is the reason? Can you reason your way to a conclusion based on those observations that we can both agree on? I hope so. I don't even understand why you're debating this, have you ever played starcraft ffs? "Thank you. That is another stunning observation. I feel blessed to be discussing these matters with a person of such sharp wits. Not a single explanation or argument, just a claim. I wish my mind had a one way channel link to God too." If someone told you the earth is larger than the sun, would you feel compelled to argue patiently with scientifical facts or just tell him he's an idiot. I usually just tell them they're an idiot thus the "LOL" ""But this is already the case in SC...". Yes, I know. But Starcraft players today are in no way near perfection are they? How come they keep evolving if they are perfect? Simplifying UI will evolve and perfect macro/multitasking much like it is continually being perfected in today's Starcraft. MBS and Auto-mining won't noobify the game and make it a casual gamer's dream game. It will only cause it to leap forward 2-3 years in evolution from the viewpoint of SBS, but without all the effort and hard work. That's really the issue that I feel we are discussing right now. " EFFORT AND HARDWORK OMG. What's evidence of a well balanced, deep strategy game, such as chess, starcraft, go, etc? The game constantly evolves and never reaches a point where everything has been tried and done. So you want SC2 to be perfectly mastered in a short time? Have you considered that people will maybe get bored of it quickly and the game will suck? How do you know SC2 will have enough depth for it to last as long SC without multi-tasking? "Improved actual macro (not APM) by simplifying the UI will cause other aspects of the game to be emphasized. It will speed up the evolution that SBS would have undergone by itself and reached in maybe 4-5 years from now. Only, by then, MBS will probably have undergone an even greater evolution. " I agree with this, except for the greater evolution part. How do you know SC2 will have enough depth for it to have a longer lifespan than SC? If you cut the muti-tasking part that's already a huge part of game's development, like you said. But that's not as important as the fact that you want the development in multi-tasking to be simplified, which is the most obvious thing that MBS will do. And the reason you give is for a "greater evolution". Because you obviously don't appreciate the fact that multi-tasking is a large part of Starcraft's structure and appeal. And you think starcraft is evolving too slowly because of that hinderance. Only a person who doesn't understand starcraft will say something like that. I think everyone who has followed progaming closely, except for you obviously, appreciates the development of starcraft over the years, the evolution of build orders, the higher efficiency of gameplay. You're not satisfied with that and propose a greater evolution, towards what? You don't think SC2 will have enough stuff other than multi-tasking to keep players satisfied? You basically want to get rid of something that's as much a part of starcraft as say, hero micro is a part of warcraft, for a very weak and may I say, dumb, reason. "Whether or not you as a person believe there to be a "skill cap" in Starcraft and Starcraft 2. Whether or not the game has reached the roof or if the ceiling in fact is as high as the sky. So that MBS and Auto-mining too, will leave sufficient room for practice and skill to PAY OFF. " Does that matter? Why do you want to get closer to the ceiling? For "Greater Evolution" LOL? Or maybe because you suck and have 90 apm? I think the latter sounds more convincing. "Zulu_nation, by the way. I have been a member here for much longer than you. Even though I haven't written in the forums, I have checked in here ever since 2002. Also, I quit playing 2004-2006, but I can assure you I have played my share of games in my time. And I have followed progaming since it's early years." Since 2004 starcraft has changed a lot | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
It kind of scares me how you can be so determined and sure that I am wrong, dumb, stupid and all those things you call me without even having tried MBS and auto-mining. I've approached this discussion with a certain amount of humility by admitting to certain problems. By saying I will be the first to change my mind and opinion if MBS and auto-mining in fact sucks. But I'm not the one preaching the evangelical gospel here in this thread. You should think twice about calling someone dumb in regerds to a subject you haven't even tried out yet. While I agree with you on the fact that maps have been increasingly macro oriented the last couple of years, I don't believe it to be the main reason of players improving and expanding more aggressively. And as for the LT and Luna comparison: I would say those maps are rather equal when it comes to the potential for macro. I really don't see what point you are trying to make by using those two maps as examples. I would have used more obvious examples, such as Katrina or Blue Storm if I were to make the same point. Anyway. You kind of know a discussion is over when someone resorts to calling you dumb and attacks your ability to play Starcraft on the basis of your opinions. I hope some moderator jumps in and stops you from continuing to "dominate" these forums the way you do. If this thread were to follow the rules of the MBS discussion II thread you would kinda be in trouble: "3. Be civil. Insult other members in any way and you are gone. 5. Constructive criticism. You are allowed to tell other posters that they are wrong. Criticism should be allowed in any discussion, but it should be done nicely, and you are expected to back up your claims." I can take sarcasm. It's a part of debating. But there's no point in calling someone stupid just because you disagree. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
However, to completely discard something without knowing whether it has the potential to actually work is also pretty narrow-minded. Wouldn't you agree on that? | ||
|
Lunaticman
Sweden1097 Posts
The people who believe auto mining to be bad are unlikely to change their opinion at all and vice versus. For better or worse its still going to happen... | ||
|
JensOfSweden
Cameroon1767 Posts
rofl, also known as a discussion | ||
| ||
