|
Despite this, Oov's macro was unparalleled. Macro comprises of many elements; supply timing, unit production, SCV management and expansion timing to name a few. While being weaker than contemporary Terrans like Nada in the field of unit production and base management he excelled in expansion timing. The extra cash of a fully operational base and the extra units it gives you far outweighs the units from the supply timing and base management side of things.
What is macro? I think this is something that has, for the most part, been rather overlooked in MBS discussions and Starcraft 2 discussions in general. Plexa in his Oov article (quoted above) noted that you can split macro into at least two elements: the mundane task of creating a base, including supply, and then producing units - this is a strict, multitasking aspect - and the other would be the more tactical line of economy and expenditure, or game sense and, as a result, game speed. While most discussions regarding SC2 macro have revolved around the former, not much has been made of the latter, which is arguably a much more important issue, as it has a direct effect on the former. Personally, the biggest problem with many RTS games today, the lack of general multitasking required by MBS aside, is that games don't emphasize the value of economic boosts, thus resulting in a slow, gradual scale of economic expenditure, as opposed to the explosive economy of Starcraft.
Simply put, Starcraft becomes more difficult macro-wise as the game goes on for the reason that, as one gains a higher economic income, the sheer multitasking required to operate X number of bases is incredible. On the other hand, without this sort of explosive economic growth, the game does not scale into such epic proportions as such blinding speed, and the macro-based play falls off.
Could this be more a deciding factor for SC2's macro than simple MBS?
It is generally conceded that, despite being able to select many buildings at once, the logistics of this can quickly bite you in the ass in Starcraft. After all, one instant you may have to select 4 factories to produce vultures, while producing takes from 2 others. Yet, you notice an insane amount of zealots charging at you! Strategically, you would then maybe switch to a 5-1 split. Even with MBS you'd be re-hotkeying your buildings. This becomes even more of an issue with Zerg, who have a relatively lower number of production buildings, but must produce a wide variety of units from each building. Drones, Zerglings, Scourge, Ultralisks, Defilers. On top of the comparatively low number of hatcheries, the location of hatcheries is also an issue, rendering MBS a liability in Starcraft ZvT. Protoss in PvT in Starcraft is similar to the TvP Terran (both races tend to produce two units, allowing you to use a simpler building hotkey structure), but in, say, PvZ, a protoss that "abuses" MBS is apt to find himself quickly overrun due to a pathetic unit mix.
In short, arguably, MBS only facilitates the playstyles of certain matchups using certain types of units.
Going back to the original topic, I find the concept of the Zerg Queen in SC2 intriguing. Its ability to teleport between hatcheries and produce quick temporary defenses assists a heavily expansive style of play. You can, theoretically, reach critical mass for Extractors far quicker than in Starcraft. With the increased game pace brought by this development, while MBS exists, the player is afforded more tasks, brought on by a quicker accumulation of income. As you all are aware, Starcraft income, at peak efficiency, at least with Zerg, is exponential. A quicker income allows for faster expansion, thereby increasing the overall speed of the game, forcing an even more frenzied pace of multitasking. Imagine a Starcraft game 20 minutes in. Strong players, at this point, tend to multitask at least 3 bases (generally more) as they reach a faster and faster "critical mass" of production. Now imagine that, in Starcraft 2, this level is reached in 10 minutes. What happens at the 20 minute mark? Could professionals, with the functionality of MBS and the increased strength of defenses (for each race), blow away the limits of Starcraft 1 production?
It's not just the Queen. Terran have their salvageable bunkers, paving the way for a cheaper, heftier defensive structure (as well as that auto-turret unit whose name I forget). Protoss have their mobile cannons and their teleports. Each race is afforded a stronger, fast defensive mechanism that facilitates heavily expansive play.
But hark, this opens the way for varied playstyle. Despite the reasoning of the economic boost of SC2, no one can argue that the micro of SC2 is taking a dip, at all.
I didn't want to turn this into an MBS discussion, but I do have one last thing to say. In Starcraft, TvP, for example, is dominated by two units. Likewise for the contrary. The number of feasible units is so low in Starcraft that a feature such as MBS would have a gamebreaking effect. However, what if, in Starcraft 2, the balance of units was better, such that in TvP you would be pumping 5 different units at once, resulting in a PvZ-esque sort of unit mix? MBS could actually be more of a liability.
Does the potentially hyper-explosive (for lack of better term) economy of Starcraft 2 and (hopefully) the availability of more unit viability counteract automining and MBS and result in a game that is as, if not more intensive in macro?
|
it seems like people have all these ideas in their heads, but can't get it out as eloquently and clearly as you did here. im jealous =)
you bring up a good many points. you put salt in the tank slowly and at the end, i caught myself going "wait, what?" when you said MBS makes more of a macro intensive game. good point.
|
SARCASM ON
If they dont include MBS no one will buy the game.
|
You negated to mention that while defensive mechanics have increased, so have harassment possibilities through Colossus, Reapers, Warp-in, Nydus Worms and Banshees. Hence, you cant defend 2 locations securing 4 bases as Zerg anymore, or at least not as easily.
|
I agree on all that u have said southlight! except that i dont think the economi will grow twice as fast, as cowgomoo said there are much more harassment units...and i think its good. i hope the one base play will be used more often and the onebase stage last longer than in sc (especially the last couple years)
|
Great writeup, just one thing... You have the notions of Strategy and tactics mixed up.
Macro = Strategical
Micro = Tactical
I agree that most noMBS proposers don't even look at the Strategy side of macro, just the clicks required to multitask as an argument (mby this should have gone to the MBS thread). I'm sure SC2 will be an even faster game than BW, resources will be utilized faster, expanding will be faster, hence multitasking will be more required, both to manage the bases and attack multiple ones.
Reference: Wikipedia
*A strategy is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal, most often "winning". Strategy is differentiated from tactics or immediate actions with resources at hand by its nature of being extensively premeditated, and often practically rehearsed. Strategies are used to make the problem or problems easier to understand and solve.
*A tactic is a conceptual action used by a military unit of no larger than a division to implement a specific mission and achieve a specific objective, or to advance toward a specific goal
|
Warning: Extremely long post follows, with plenty of mention of MBS. I know you said you didn't want to turn this into an MBS discussion, but I think this post is most relevant here as it deals heavily with the ideas of macro and multitasking and not simply MBS. If necessary, I will post this instead in the MBS thread. I didn't really want to take sides in this whole debate, just bring forth some observations. I can see the benefits of both sides of the argument, and so in reality, I'm simply taking this as an opportunity to criticize many arguments I HAVE seen from the Anti-MBS base. I would do the same for Pro-MBS too if so many seasoned veteran posters weren't dismantling them so efficiently already.
I think a lot of the MBS arguments I've come across are bit narrow minded, falling trap to what I call the "MBS in Starcraft 1" argument. In other words, people tend to argue against MBS by imagining how it would effect Starcraft 1 if it were added today, with the inevitable conclusion being that it would make the game a bit too much easier. Its not hard to understand why people make this argument. In general, people are most comfortable arguing in a ceteris paribus environment; they want to hold everything else constant. It really is the only way to know what effect a single change will make on the outlook of the game in general. The problem lies here, because as we all know, SC2 is making quite a few changes, a good number of them fundamental. Does this mean its not worth noting how MBS would effect starcraft 1? No, I don't think so. But at the same time, its not worth stressing over either. From the recent game design interview featured by gamespy with Dustin Browder, I think its safe to assume the developers are aware of the general communities concerns. Now, even if you don't have any faith in their development skill, this statement alone should be enough to convince you of the importance of the issue, and their confidence in their ability to solve it. I think this is as good as it gets right now, and constantly stressing that SC1 would be dead right now had it had MBS is about as useless to them as it is to us.
With that said, I think there is an even more fundamental problem that I've seen arise in MBS debates, and you've touched on it quite eloquently here. Its a problem of definition. If you ask people to define exactly what MBS is taking AWAY from the game, most are going to say macro. But this isn't really the case. Its unit production, and only a small part of it.
Your Plexa quote is right on the money: Macro is about a lot more than unit production. I would like to expand on that even further. I think the easiest way to understand macro is to define it as base management. It is the activities that good players are required to do while they are focused on their attacks and harasses to make sure that they will be able to CONTINUE doing attacks and harasses. This includes exactly what Plexa said: supply timing, unit production, SCV management, and expansion timing. Starcraft is a game of multitasking, and macro is just one of the tasks that need to be handled, and even then it is broken up into the tasks listed above. Instead of focusing on the other elements like you have, I will still stick with unit production though.
So what has been changed from SC1 to SC2 about unit production? MBS will allow the player to build units with more ease, and thus lower the skill required to play... or so the argument goes. I think most will agree the real threat of MBS is one of an attack against multitasking. If the player is no longer required to focus as heavily on one area, then they are able to focus more on another. This is a sort of domino effect. Its a lot worse than one task being made easier. It is every task being made easier.
I believe the logic behind this argument is flawed. Because you see, multitasking is still required with MBS. I know of people who used to put (or still do) sticky notes on their walls or monitors with the capital letters "MACRO!" It was such an important thing in the game, that if you forgot even for an instant, you would be run over in the next. The hard part about it was remembering to do it, and actually taking the time to follow through, every single time. Is actually going through and hitting each barracks and pressing 'm' the hard part? No. It was remembering to do it even when your large army was on the move to the Z base. Because if you forgot, or worse, thought it wasn't necessary, and your attack failed, the game was over right then and there and not in the way you had hoped. Sure, there was difficulty in actually doing the menial task of it, but I don't truly believe thats the spirit of the difficulty of macro. When you see someone with 2000+ minerals (like Nony in the Team Melee TLAttack for instance), where did they go wrong? Could they not press Z or D or whatever fast enough? Or was the problem more fundamental: not even starting unit production, not enough gateways, not enough pylons. It has virtually always been the latter.
And this is what people need to understand about macro. Its difficulty comes from the need to multitask, and MBS alone does not remove this from the game. When your army is on the move, you STILL need to remember to hit your hotkey and start spamming what units you want to be made. You still need to multitask. The way you produce units may have been altered to be slightly easier, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to remember to do it. On top of all this, we have what the OP has stated: the other elements of macro are virtually unaffected. How is hotkeying a group of barracks going to help you to get that supply depot up while your M&M try to catch some mutalisks in a path of flight? What use will that hotkey be when its 15 minutes into the game and you are falling behind in expansions? If anything, decreased time spent on unit production encourages increased attention on the other elements of macro. And like I stated earlier about multitasking: it has a sort of domino effect. If you spend less time doing one task, the others are surely to be effected. If it takes you a bit less time to make units, maybe you can expand more confidently. If you expand more confidently, then your stronger economy will encourage even more unit production.
Before I finish this post, I want to state the most important fact of all: SC2 is not done. It won't be done for awhile. You don't have to have any confidence in Blizzard at all to KNOW that what we have seen so far is NOT the final game. Sure, MBS is likely to stay, but this is no reason to get so frustrated about the issue. Who knows, in the end, macro may end up being once again one of the key aspects of play SC2 just like it was in SC1. This post is admittedly more Pro-MBS in nature than I intended, but that doesn't mean see I don't see the value in a No-MBS game either. I would really be happy with either, which is a lot more "bi-partisan" in a sense than I think most could say on either side.
|
United States13896 Posts
geno, you make good points about what makes macro difficult for most casual and mid-level players, most importantly that the process of remembering to macro every 20 seconds or whatever it takes to build a series of units is what separates a lot of players' macro abilities at the lower levels.
But I think it's important that it's stressed that people who are being called anti-MBS or pro-SBS are not concerned about what separates these mid-level gamers, they're concerned about what is going to separate the best of the best, what is going to separate the Lee Jae Dongs and Ma Jae Yoons of the world from the average professional gamer. When you get to the levels that these players are at, these fundamentals of "remembering to macro" and such have been practiced so much they have them down to a science. Watch OSL games where they have the population caps shown in the corner of the screen, I guarantee you that no player will ever find himself hindered by not timing a pylon, supply depot, or overlord right.
At this point, it is the players "unit production" abilities that distinguish him from other progamers. When Oov came into his prime in the article that you cite by Plexa, no one quite did macro as well as Oov did. But nowadays, the standards are much higher for the average progamer.
The concerns of people who criticize MBS are that it will hamper the game's ability to harbor such a lively competetive scene because the skill ceiling is lowered. The core of macro is still there, but the mechanics of it become much easier, thus the game is easier, Dustin Browder said it himself. His challenge is to come up with something to compensate for the effects of MBS. If he and his development team can do that, I believe SC2 still has a good chance to become a worthy successor to SC:BW.
|
Do you know why only 2-3 units are produced at any given time in any matchup?
Because they are the most effective units at that point in time.
Say I have an army that is composed of X, Y, and Z vs an army of A and B.
X > A
A > Y
Y > B
B > X
Z = A
Z = B
In short, say XY are vult/tank and that AB are zeal/goon - and then we make some marines (Z). We have now just spent money on a unit that is no more effective against either zeals or goons than vult/tank. That's why it doesn't make sense to produce 3 units than 2.
Now casters are a slightly different story - their effect is so large against an entire army that they are definitely useful. For instance, arbs can always be useful if you have the economic position to make them. On the other hand, for a combat unit, it doesn't make sense to add in 1/3 DT to zeal/goon.
I doubt core armies will be more than 2 unit types. However, there are roles for the other units, even if they aren't in the main ball.
|
I don't think I really understand enough about the PvT matchup to comment but concerning one point you raised about the zerg.
I never really thought about how MBS could push the game pace except how it would help a lower level player have more of a chance against a higher skilled opponent. Now that you mention it, as a zerg user, its true that with more bases, the in flow of resources reallly push the speed of the game. But I still think MBS will never really have a liability, if anything, the gains will be far greater than the losses.
You say that when an army needs to be more diverse, MBS could be damaging, but if I'm playing, and I make a lot of the "wrong" units, or at least, a less effective unit combination but still a great number of it due to MBS, then is that WORSE than making many fewer units of the right combination. Because all of my production buildings are bound to one key, is making a bunch of units of the same type that much worse than only being physically able to produce a few diverse units while at the same time, massing resources that should've been spent. This could or could not be realistic depending on the player's level I guess. The question I raise above is probably aimed more at lower leveled players who might not know the best unit combination and often forgets to produce units.
But now that I'm thinking about it, MBS will not hurt but help pros in any match up as well. The advantages in being able to have a number of your hatcheries producing one type of unit instantly is huge even in a match up where you need unit diversity because the units you produce will be in different proportions. I get the feeling that your post assumes that just because a match up such as PvZ requires the player to make Ultras, lings, hydras, lurkers, defilers, scourges, and overlords, that ALL or most of the hatchs have to make them since you tapped the hotkey for all the hatchs and then hit the hotkey for the unit that you want. But can't you also bind a different number of hatches to each number key? For example, bind 3 hatches for ling, 2 for ultras, and leave 2 hatches unbinded so you can mix in defilers, scourges, and overlords or something. This will make production faster while giving the player the control of unit mix.
Overall, I agree with you that MBS will push the game speed, and the macro of timing, expanding, and supplying timing, but it will make the macro of production easier, which in some ways, counteract the greater influx of resources that you will be getting from the faster expansions. Whatever just my thoughts.
|
All Im gunna say is, looking at the savior replays from the zerg demos I can safely say that there is no way in hell that I can beat this guy even if I played this game 24/7, hes just TOO FAST !
hence, his macro will always be better than 99% of all of us.
|
On March 12 2008 08:49 []p4NDemik[] wrote:
At this point, it is the players "unit production" abilities that distinguish him from other progamers. When Oov came into his prime in the article that you cite by Plexa, no one quite did macro as well as Oov did. But nowadays, the standards are much higher for the average progamer.
You make a good point I didn't touch on too strongly: the pro level. You are right to say that what I've stated is especially true for low to mid, maybe even some high level players. The pro level is just different. Everyone is so damn talented. But I don't see why you draw the line there. If all the pro players are good enough to multitask and macro (which by the way, I don't concede. I've seen some make such fundamental mistakes occasionally, even if it is rare), why do you feel they aren't good enough at producing units? I don't think Oov's massive macro came from strong unit production, and I know I'm not the only one. Have you read through all of Plexa's article? It states that his enviable advantages came from expansion timing. The most important word here in relevance to the pro-scene as a whole is timing. This is where the differences lie, between the Flashes and Flowers, the Jaedongs and the Jaehoons (no offense to either: I just picked players with high current ELO and low current ELO lol.) It is all about timing. Or to be even more broad, game sense. Game sense is what makes or breaks a professional gamer. Sure, we've all been impressed by the fantastic micro or macro of a top player, but the true reason we ever get to see that is because of game sense. Oov knew when to expand. Savior knew when an opponent would cheese him. Jaedong knows just about everything.
Do you really feel Oov was as dominant as he was because he had better fundamentals? Was producing units so difficult for the rest of the professional players that 10+hours a day of practice didn't help them to learn it? I don't think so. Timing, game sense, and innovation are what separates the kings from the peasants, not fundamentals. So how does MBS harm those? It doesn't really. If you think they never forget their pylons, then why do you think they aren't able to click a couple extra buildings? Because that is truly the difference. From what I currently understand about MBS, you would still have to click a hotkey for every unit you build. The only difference would be having to actually click each building. So the difference in clicks is equal to the difference in number of production buildings, scaling up as the game gets later. Isn't this sort of what is needed? I know we've all seen things a progamer could have done better at 25 minutes into the match, and thats because its impossible to do everything perfectly at that point; this is the reason team melee matches become unfathomably hard to win against in the late game. Do you feel that saving yourself an extra 10 clicks for production is going to change that?
|
sigh...
I dont want to make this long, so I'll just go after the main points:
What is macro? I think this is something that has, for the most part, been rather overlooked in MBS discussions and Starcraft 2 discussions in general. Plexa in his Oov article (quoted above) noted that you can split macro into at least two elements: the mundane task of creating a base, including supply, and then producing units - this is a strict, multitasking aspect - and the other would be the more tactical line of economy and expenditure, or game sense and, as a result, game speed.
While game sense is valuable (I personally consider it seperately from macro, but whatever), dont you think after watching 100 replays you will be able to figure out cc timing and factory timing?
People make a bigger deal of this than it merits. You dont have to be a progamer to know when to get a forge first pvz in sc.....Timing can be learned far easier than multitasking.
multitasking represents a physical barrier and as such is an active challenge.
base timing is a passive challenge, once it is understood, it requires little effort.
So I don't think you can say that base timing is as hard as multitasking. I dont think you can say that you have to play 13 hours a day to figure it out. I dont think you can say that it would be impossible to learn/copy from progamers by watching replays and light play.
In short, I don't think you can say it is a big a skill differentiator as multitasking.
After all, one instant you may have to select 4 factories to produce vultures, while producing takes from 2 others. Yet, you notice an insane amount of zealots charging at you! Strategically, you would then maybe switch to a 5-1 split. Even with MBS you'd be re-hotkeying your buildings.
First of all, there is a reason you scout.
Second, MBS isnt any where near as static as you think. If you see zealots: 5, esc, v.
If you want unit mixes, you dont have to use sbs to do so.
You can easily fit 3 different ratios into hotkeys. If you want 2-8, 5-1, 4-3, whatever. Go for it.
You have more than enough hotkeys to do this without going back to your base and manually clicking on gateways.
Why do you have the keys to do this?
unlimited unit selection means you need at most 1 or 2 hotkeys for units
mbs and automining means you need 1 hotkey for your nexus/probes
1 more hotkey for upgrade buildings
and....you still have 6 hotkeys left.
If for some reason you want to hotkey observers or something,
you still have 4 hotkeys, which is enough to produce 2-3 different ratios for most of the time.
now that we get past that, how likely do you think it is that such things will happen constantly during a game?
Most of the time your ratios will be fairly standard, which means this a non-issue for the majority of a game.
On top of the comparatively low number of hatcheries, the location of hatcheries is also an issue, rendering MBS a liability in Starcraft ZvT.
ummmm....
what?
mbs means you can select every single hatchery on the map and hotkey it to one key.
automining means you dont have to watch the drones.
smart rally means you can have all your units rally to one spot if you want.
so what is the problem again?
You can, theoretically, reach critical mass for Extractors far quicker than in Starcraft. With the increased game pace brought by this development, while MBS exists, the player is afforded more tasks, brought on by a quicker accumulation of income. As you all are aware, Starcraft income, at peak efficiency, at least with Zerg, is exponential. A quicker income allows for faster expansion, thereby increasing the overall speed of the game, forcing an even more frenzied pace of multitasking. Imagine a Starcraft game 20 minutes in. Strong players, at this point, tend to multitask at least 3 bases (generally more) as they reach a faster and faster "critical mass" of production. Now imagine that, in Starcraft 2, this level is reached in 10 minutes. What happens at the 20 minute mark?
So you are saying we should practically eliminate mid game.
and that you still expect games to average the same length
.....
yeah
I didn't want to turn this into an MBS discussion, but I do have one last thing to say. In Starcraft, TvP, for example, is dominated by two units. Likewise for the contrary. The number of feasible units is so low in Starcraft that a feature such as MBS would have a gamebreaking effect. However, what if, in Starcraft 2, the balance of units was better, such that in TvP you would be pumping 5 different units at once, resulting in a PvZ-esque sort of unit mix? MBS could actually be more of a liability.
sorry, this sounds nice, but I really dont see it happening without hard counters. Yes you will occasionally want to mix in spellcasters/ special units, but I doubt you will get a great advantage by building 5 different types of units (although, again, you should have enough hotkeys to do this without mbs) unless there are hard counters.
-------------
This includes exactly what Plexa said: supply timing, unit production, SCV management, and expansion timing.
supply timing can still be easily handled. Its not like its that hard to figure out. It certainly doesnt take 13 hours a day of playing to figure out.
On top of that, it doesnt happen every unit cycle. And after depots have been maxed, it doesnt happen at all.
unit production is mbs. I dont see how anyone could argue that its not (Im assuming thats not what you are trying to do)
scv management is handled by mbs and automining. 1,s. Congrats, you just handled scv production for 5 bases. Now the second part of it, which I'm assuming you are getting at is: When do I cut scvs?
Watch replays... I really dont see scvs being cut other than for timing attacks, and I think even a majority of today's d players no when to cut scvs for timing attacks.
Outside of timing attacks, cutting scvs is not as precise, but still doesnt require 13 hours a day to master.
expansion timing can also be learned from replays/casual play.
While these might cause some skill differentiation among amateurs, do you really think its going to do the same among progamers?
|
Do you really feel Oov was as dominant as he was because he had better fundamentals? Was producing units so difficult for the rest of the professional players that 10+hours a day of practice didn't help them to learn it? I don't think so. Timing, game sense, and innovation are what separates the kings from the peasants, not fundamentals. So how does MBS harm those? It doesn't really.
Your whole reasoning is flawed. The fact that timing,game sense, and innovation are what seperates the pros are because they can do it WHILE being able to macro. They are also reading the game while doing all these things.
I was going to bring in ladder discussion into this whole mbs discussion but cant think of a good way to get my point across. Well hell ill just say it. Ladder exists for gamers to get better so the whole argument about MBS being used to help weaker players doesnt hold water. That is what Ladder is for. To play people at your skill level.
|
United States13896 Posts
geno, i think you mistook what i meant in that paragraph when you took it out of context. The point I was trying to make is that Progaming in it's current state has caught up to Oov. Obviously it has, or he would still be a player dominating the pro-scene and he wouldn't be a coach. I obviously don't think Oov had such astounding macro at the time just because of his "fundamentals." It was the total package that made him so dominant. But now, progamers on a whole have made great strides to become as good or better than the standard that Oov set (of course, many still lack in macro, and you can still distinguish the best from the rest). In short, I wasn't trying to say his "unit production" or his fundamentals were what made him so outstanding macrowise - I was trying to express how the game has changed, how Oov set a new sort of standard, and now the very small details in the mechanics and decisions of good macro players is what distinguishes them from the rest of the pack. i.e. the game has evolved and players are better at macro.
Game sense will always be a constant as far as I'm concerned, it's something that is very difficult to teach. And in that sense you are right, the speed at which you cycle through your macro tasks doesn't make up for knowing when it's time to expand, etc. I haven't played SC2, and I can't say how many "clicks" (I really don't like it when anyone uses this word, RTS's aren't decided by clicks, they are decided by actions) will be eliminated from the macro aspect, but what I do know is regardless of how much you are losing, you're still losing actions, and thus you can focus elsewhere. Thus, the worry that the ceiling will be lowered and at least one aspect of macro will be easier. How will that spill over into the qualities of macro that this thread focuses on? I don't know, but it seems quite obvious that it in turn will be to an extent easier. It spills over to the rest of the game as well.
In the end the question is, will we still be able to distinguish between the ranks of the progamers who is good enough to be a "bonjwa?" You need a level of deviation at the highest levels to make any competitive game interesting. There needs to be dominant players/teams, and there needs to be players/teams that pale in comparison. These 10 clicks (hate that term!) or whatever that you talk about, regardless of the actual number of actions/multi-tasking that will be missed (could be more, could be less, we haven't played the game), provide a real question as to how different this game will be at the top levels of play.
The fact that there is more than one element of macro doesn't change the MBS argument, but it is important that it isn't forgotten.
|
EDIT:
Oh god, I shoulda split this post up. I'm sorry orz
--------------------------------------------------
Well, because I made it more a topic of macro, overall, rather than MBS itself, I can understand MBS being a factor in the discussion, I just simply didn't want to turn it into another MBS topic.
On March 12 2008 08:53 naventus wrote:
I doubt core armies will be more than 2 unit types. However, there are roles for the other units, even if they aren't in the main ball.
This is the case in Starcraft though.
Take, for instance, a "standard" TvZ projection in Starcraft 2. Assuming the matchup is still bio-oriented (who knows what'll end up being, but for the sake of this example, we'll make this assumption). You still have the bread-and-butter marine. I'm not going to speculate on their medic vehicle idea, but lets say they stick with our old friendly medics. You have marines and medics pumping out of Barracks. But wait, we have Marauders, too, because arguably, their slow effect can help mow down Zerglings! All of a sudden you have roughly a 150% increase in viable units being produced from one building. To an extent this is true in Starcraft with Firebats, but I think most people would agree that the effect of Marauders can very easily trump the effect of Firebats, by way of stunting Zerglings and Banelings and Ultralisks. We don't know how well this will work out, but any increase in the viability of "core" unit is one simple way of dampening the effect of MBS.
Just to make it clear, by "liability" in regard to MBS, I mean if you were to rely on it, you're more likely to fail at a given task. I am, of course, speaking in the realm of pros, because as someone mentioned, that's where the e-sport viability of the game lies.
Say a zerg player hotkeys hatcheries 1-3 at 7 and 4 at 8, in preparation for a muta pump while making drones with the fourth hatch, as he's taken on a more macro-based hatch build at start. Then he notices an inordinate number number of barracks (say 5), whose push would cleanly raze a muta/ling defense. With a non-MBS hotkey set this is simple- you simply switch what units you make with the hotkeys (say, 4sh5sh6sz7sz so you get extra lurkers) or something. But with MBS, you've got to go an extra mile to perform this task. At worst, you now have to re-hotkey everything, which takes extra time. This is extra time lost that is a pain in the ass, and extra time lost, arguably, from an effective mutalisk harass. By relying on MBS to perform a task and then finding that task inadequate for the situation, you've now allowed it to become a liability.
Anyways, that MBS stuff aside!
On March 12 2008 07:33 CowGoMoo wrote:
You negated to mention that while defensive mechanics have increased, so have harassment possibilities through Colossus, Reapers, Warp-in, Nydus Worms and Banshees. Hence, you cant defend 2 locations securing 4 bases as Zerg anymore, or at least not as easily.
While that's a good point, personally it doesn't seem all that different, number-wise, from Starcraft. For example, protoss have colossus, dark templar, high templar and classic zealot drops (warp-in). Frankly, this is no different from Reaver/DT/HT/Zealot, in numbers. Now, how long does it take to kick these tech into gear to go into harassment mode? Bear in mind that Savior has shown us a four-hatch opening against protoss, having the economy kick in before Reaver harass (see Stork vs Savior in a bo3 a while ago, I wish I could tell you exactly which, I think it was on Zodiac, the one where Savior scourge-snipes a reaver and then hydra all-ins). This despite having no true defense mechanism except zerglings to stop zealots.
Even against terran, with Reapers and Banshees, we saw the Queen rocking marines up. Obviously I (or we) don't know exactly how effective Queens are, but I would imagine that a Queen can, at worst, enable a double-expand opening, which is something you basically never see in a ZvT - why? because you can't defend the third hatch against even a skeleton m+m crew. Not necessarily the case anymore with the Queen. It's too hard to say how exactly the unit mixture will turn out, but these things are possible.
Likewise, in Starcraft TvX, securing a third gas is tough. Why else did Oov have to develop the usage of a Wraith in TvT, and why else did Oov develop the defensive vulture style in TvP? But now, with the auto-turret and the "free" Bunker, it's a lot more economically feasible to stake out that position. Again, we don't have a complete picture of how effective these things are against harassment, but we'll see.
My point is, I think the added focus on the VIABILITY (here's to hoping it works out) of cheap, fast defenses can make these quick expansions. After all, Protoss already do this NOW, but it's expensive (cannons). If you could MOVE cannons to where you need them...... I don't think I need to elaborate on that point.
On March 12 2008 09:53 fusionsdf wrote:
While game sense is valuable (I personally consider it seperately from macro, but whatever), dont you think after watching 100 replays you will be able to figure out cc timing and factory timing?
...
People make a bigger deal of this than it merits. You dont have to be a progamer to know when to get a forge first pvz in sc.....Timing can be learned far easier than multitasking.
multitasking represents a physical barrier and as such is an active challenge.
base timing is a passive challenge, once it is understood, it requires little effort.
Yet, a fair number of TL members, if I remember the poll before, have a pretty decent level of APM, which would imply a fair level of multitasking. When you take some of their replays and compare them to, say... Satanik, you get what amounts to a very comparable level of multitasking (I hate bringing up APM, but it's the simplest, though not fully accurate, way of comparison). But what separates Satanik from chobos is a better understanding of the game. This isn't necessarily a better strategy, but the ability to adapt to the game. "Game Sense," as you call it. But apparently not as clear-cut and simple as you put it. Obviously there're times where you simply get out-multitasked, but Jaedong vs Bisu, according to Nony's commentary, was a case of Bisu missing the timing. Here's a guy who practices 8 hours a day, was considered at the apex of PvZ at the time of that match, who was considered an absolute monster of game sense, timing and multitasking, and he failed at timing? I'm not going to say you can win with only game sense, but I completely disagree in saying that game sense is "simple to learn," of sorts. But we can agree to disagree.
On March 12 2008 09:53 fusionsdf wrote:
So you are saying we should practically eliminate mid game.
and that you still expect games to average the same length
.....
yeah
...
sorry, this sounds nice, but I really dont see it happening without hard counters. Yes you will occasionally want to mix in spellcasters/ special units, but I doubt you will get a great advantage by building 5 different types of units (although, again, you should have enough hotkeys to do this without mbs) unless there are hard counters.
I'm going to bypass all the MBS stuff because that's better suited to a different thread, and I've already made my point clear, I think.
The first part is that you're projecting everything about Starcraft to Starcraft 2. What is mid-game to you? Is it unit tier? Is it the number of expansions? An increase in game speed would generally not affect tech speed (as you're still having to devote time to upgrading and all... especially for zerg, with their whacked out upgrading system).
To illustrate my example,
In Starcraft 1, you can say, on a 4-man map, in 10 minutes of a standard ZvT, a zerg has 3 bases, two or so lurkers guarding the ramp to the second main, lurker + spire tech, and in the case of Jaedong/Savior's trend, teching to hive right around this point. 10-14 minutes seems to be the norm.
In Starcraft 2, it COULD BE POSSIBLE that on a 4-man map, in 10 minutes of a standard ZvT, a zerg has 5 bases, with lurker and spire tech, teching to hive.
What does this mean? It simply scales the numbers. Instead of having, say... four or five timing points for you to have died (12 hatch for BBS rush, spire tech, expansion, hive tech), you'd have had a fair number of timing points from the number of hatcheries you've made, due to the increased speed of the game (as it's fair to say the faster expansions at start, say an easily defended double expand would prompt a faster 4th base, if not 5th). You'd still have the tech timings. And as you're somewhat spread thin, there're more points for the opponent to harass you. Oh, wonderful! In Starcraft 2, terran can harass you back! This can easily create a game with more action than Starcraft. Plus, with all this extra income and harassment, macro still keeps pace. Yes, there is MBS. But MBS and the likes, I think, can only help you so much when you're tracking five bases while fighting a constant battle. But five bases might be a stretch. Even if you have a faster third hatchery, the speed of the game increases. That's what the case was with Oov, wasn't it? By "cheating" his way to a faster economic boost, he sped up his own side of the game, reaching an economic point several minutes earlier than the opponent. This created the illusion that he was producing an inordinate amount of units, when in fact all he did was speed up the game, and the opponent (for a long while) simply did not keep pace.
This is why I'm saying MBS is taking a sort of back seat to my argument. I'm not arguing for or against MBS, as I'm waiting to see how the game goes. My point is simply that, due to the nature of the units and buildings that have been revealed so far, it seems plausible that a high-octane economic strategy is possible and, perhaps, can become the norm. Even a minute shaved off an expansion timing results in much faster game pace. I don't think you can debate this point. My last point, incidentally, was simply that, with the game plausibly being more frenetic, MBS may even be required to help SC2 break the bounds of SC. Yes, right now, it's hard for the economy to get faster, because the timing of units and buildings has been set down to a science that it's unlikely that another oov-ian economic revolution occurs. But if it did, if you could create, with consistency, an even faster economic base, the game speeds up, and you might see players struggle to reel everything in. On one hand you can wait for the players to grow faster (is what happened to SC, as newer players more and more broke our preconceived notion of "this is fast"). On the other hand you can give them a slight helping hand, allow the game to burst past the "upper-limits" of Starcraft in terms of pure micro/macro proportions, and then watch as players go beyond that. I simply don't see MBS being a pure ceiling. Even now, from our very best players, we see "silly" micro mistakes as the cannot reign in the task of controlling 4 bases while controlling 80 units.
---------------------------------------------
EDIT:
Starcraft example!
When Savior began spreading the usage of the three-hatch play, as opposed to the classic standard of two-hatch, the game sped up, for Zerg. Arguably it took a while for other races to catch up and understanding the economic speed of this build. Even now we see Jaedong fly away like an angel after his three-hatch econ kicks in, as he stalls with Mutalisks. After that point, other players simply cannot keep up with his economy and, yeah, his ability to multitask. People did not cry, "oh my god Savior why'd you kill the mid-game and go straight to end-game? (Hive Tech)" They simply went, wow, that is fast, adjusted to the new zerg speed, and the game length has, arguably, not really gone up or down. The speed of zerg production simply rose to a whole new level. And now, no one looks back from 3-hatch except as a surprise move. It is simply faster. And if you could fit in a 4th hatch off the bat? The mid-game would not die, but zerg production speed kicks into another level. Jaedong vs Bisu is, perhaps, a fair display of the production speed afforded by his extra hatch, enabling him to negate losses from Bisu's spectacular harassment. Bisu tried to slow Jaedong down, but that fourth hatch made his production capability far too fast- faster than the traditional 3-hatch zerg.
---------------------------------------------
By the way I see the effect of unlimited control groups as being weaker than you describe. I don't know about you, but while I might hotkey my entire army to 0 to make them easier to move, when push comes to shove, I'm going to have separate hotkeys for groups of zerglings and the likes to flank, burrow, etc. Thus making most fights, well, the same.
|
Before I respond, I wanted to ask a question. I've been thinking under the assumption that MBS in its current build worked as follows: You could select multiple buildings at the same time, but would still need to hit a hotkey for every unit you produced. So if you wanted 5 zealots from 5 gateways, you would select all 5, and hit z 5 times. But I have read some responses saying you would only press Z once. Either way, I don't think my opinion would be terribly different, but I'm a bit curious as to which one is true? Hopefully someone who has played the current build can elaborate.
Now, Southlight has said most of what I might have, but just for good measure,..
On March 12 2008 09:58 Zanric wrote:
Your whole reasoning is flawed. The fact that timing,game sense, and innovation are what seperates the pros are because they can do it WHILE being able to macro. They are also reading the game while doing all these things.
I understand what you were saying and to an extent agree with you about the purpose of Ladder systems, but I don't think its especially relevant. I'm far more interested in understanding how the game will work on a professional level than on lower levels, as I'm absolutely positive no one under pro-level will reach the supposed "skill cap" that some argue MBS will add. So instead I'm focusing on this segment of your quote.
Let me first say, that I understand where you are coming from. I think we just fundamentally disagree on one point: What separates the best players from the rest? This is a pretty interesting question and its far too subjective to ever come to a conclusive answer. You are implying multitasking is the most important, and while I agree it is terribly important, I feel it is not the deciding factor in most games. As Southlght pointed out, multitasking ability is fairly well correlated with APM. Some of the best players we have seen have had supreme APM too. But its important to note that this is simply a correlation, and not causation. Simply having high APM, or being able to multitask, is not going to get you to the top. You have to know what you are doing, and more importantly, what your opponent is doing. You often have to be creative, even revolutionary. Nearly all the greats of Professional starcraft have fundamentally changed the way it was played in some aspect, and I would challenge you to find one that isn't. Nada, Oov, Savior, Bisu... these players all brought something unique to the table. As Plexa and Southlight have both mentioned, Oov brought a new style of play into the game, indeed for all matchups, focused heavily on expanding.
You also seem to think that MBS will not require any multitasking. At what point did MBS allow you to build units without giving it ANY attention? This isn't autobuild here, there is still some labor required. You will still need to actually build the units WHILE you are using timing, game sense, and innovation to win you the game. I don't see how that aspect has changed. What has changed is how long it will take you to do it: Virtually no difference in early game, maybe 6 action difference in mid game and 10-15 action difference in late game. Now lets make these numbers more real. By decreasing the amount of actions required by this much, we are effectively adding the same number to every single players APM. Do you think that professional starcraft would no longer be of any interest to anyone if every players APM increased by 20 (being a bit generous here at that)? We already see fluctuations of over 100 between two professional players, often with the lower one winning, as well as players with over 400APM making some mistakes so I'm quite sure that is not the case.
On March 12 2008 08:49 []p4NDemik[] wrote:
geno, i think you mistook what i meant in that paragraph when you took it out of context. The point I was trying to make is that Progaming in it's current state has caught up to Oov. Obviously it has, or he would still be a player dominating the pro-scene and he wouldn't be a coach. I obviously don't think Oov had such astounding macro at the time just because of his "fundamentals." It was the total package that made him so dominant. But now, progamers on a whole have made great strides to become as good or better than the standard that Oov set (of course, many still lack in macro, and you can still distinguish the best from the rest). In short, I wasn't trying to say his "unit production" or his fundamentals were what made him so outstanding macrowise - I was trying to express how the game has changed, how Oov set a new sort of standard, and now the very small details in the mechanics and decisions of good macro players is what distinguishes them from the rest of the pack. i.e. the game has evolved and players are better at macro.
What has actually happened is that players are using expansion-centric builds more often. This gives the illusion of "better macro," but in reality it is just earlier macro. Players like Oov opted to skip 2 base play and jump right into 3 base play, and because he knew how to do it, it actually worked. Southlight explains this is in better detail, so I would read his post.
On March 12 2008 08:49 []p4NDemik[] wrote:Game sense will always be a constant as far as I'm concerned, it's something that is very difficult to teach. And in that sense you are right, the speed at which you cycle through your macro tasks doesn't make up for knowing when it's time to expand, etc. I haven't played SC2, and I can't say how many "clicks" (I really don't like it when anyone uses this word, RTS's aren't decided by clicks, they are decided by actions) will be eliminated from the macro aspect, but what I do know is regardless of how much you are losing, you're still losing actions, and thus you can focus elsewhere. Thus, the worry that the ceiling will be lowered and at least one aspect of macro will be easier. How will that spill over into the qualities of macro that this thread focuses on? I don't know, but it seems quite obvious that it in turn will be to an extent easier. It spills over to the rest of the game as well.
You are pointing out the very same trend I did: a domino effect. It is natural with a game focused on multitasking. Make one task easier, you have more time for the others, and thus those are easier. Its actually not a bad argument, because few (and really, no one should) will argue that MBS isn't easier than SBS. There are two key things to note though. I argue that, while it will be easier, it will not be significantly easier. This is the first point I wanted to make. I mentioned earlier in this post about the difference in number of actions (action is certainly the more appropriate word in retrospect) and I tried to prove just how insignificant that is in the bigger picture. Secondly, those actions are being made up for in other areas (predominantly micro in the current build, but I'm positive that could change without removing MBS)
Had you made an argument that MBS is only threatening because it is one of many "simplification" changes including Unlimited Unit Selection, Auto mining, Smart casting, and Idle worker selection, I would be more inclined to listen to that argument. Maybe together they would add up to a significant decrease in the number of actions required in high level play, with Automining, and Idle worker selection in particular being other aspects of macro effected. This is actually one argument I have a hard time defending, but make no mistake, not because I feel the game would become easier. We already know that Blizzard is adding plenty of tasks on the micro side that will in the end likely balance out the game to still be one that requires high APM.
The concession I would make is that overall, a larger percentage of the actions taken in a game, if classified between micro and macro actions, will be on the micro side than was the case in SC1. That said, I still believe the difference will be negligible enough such that the game will maintain the "feel" of Starcraft. Even if that % were to shift, it would be CONSIDERABLY closer to SC1 than WC3 in terms of micro:macro ratio, as the game is far more focused on large armies, heavy expansion play, and no hero units (don't bring up the mothership/queen please! No matter how unique and micro intensive it will be, it is not even close to WC3 heroes).
I can agree with most of the rest of what you said. I do feel the other elements of macro are important in the MBS argument, but Southlight already covered them so I will not.
|
United States13896 Posts
On March 12 2008 12:17 geno wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2008 08:49 []p4NDemik[] wrote:
geno, i think you mistook what i meant in that paragraph when you took it out of context. The point I was trying to make is that Progaming in it's current state has caught up to Oov. Obviously it has, or he would still be a player dominating the pro-scene and he wouldn't be a coach. I obviously don't think Oov had such astounding macro at the time just because of his "fundamentals." It was the total package that made him so dominant. But now, progamers on a whole have made great strides to become as good or better than the standard that Oov set (of course, many still lack in macro, and you can still distinguish the best from the rest). In short, I wasn't trying to say his "unit production" or his fundamentals were what made him so outstanding macrowise - I was trying to express how the game has changed, how Oov set a new sort of standard, and now the very small details in the mechanics and decisions of good macro players is what distinguishes them from the rest of the pack. i.e. the game has evolved and players are better at macro.
What has actually happened is that players are using expansion-centric builds more often. This gives the illusion of "better macro," but in reality it is just earlier macro. Players like Oov opted to skip 2 base play and jump right into 3 base play, and because he knew how to do it, it actually worked. Southlight explains this is in better detail, so I would read his post.
I'm just going to flat out disagree with you that there is an illusion of "better macro." I think in order to keep up and compete with these "expansion centric" builds its clear that players have thus had to get better at macro, I don't see how it can be the opposite. If the game starts leaning towards builds that lead towards getting into mid and late game faster, then naturally the players are going to have to push themselves macro-wise to keep up with the rest. It means there's more tasks to be done earlier on in the game. How does that not, in turn, usher in better macro? There is no illusion. I'm willing to bet most people who watch progaming will agree that players are now pushing the limits of macro (and micro), that the game has come a long way since the days of Oov's dominance. To say that there is an "illusion" of better macro is false.
On March 12 2008 12:17 geno wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2008 08:49 []p4NDemik[] wrote:Game sense will always be a constant as far as I'm concerned, it's something that is very difficult to teach. And in that sense you are right, the speed at which you cycle through your macro tasks doesn't make up for knowing when it's time to expand, etc. I haven't played SC2, and I can't say how many "clicks" (I really don't like it when anyone uses this word, RTS's aren't decided by clicks, they are decided by actions) will be eliminated from the macro aspect, but what I do know is regardless of how much you are losing, you're still losing actions, and thus you can focus elsewhere. Thus, the worry that the ceiling will be lowered and at least one aspect of macro will be easier. How will that spill over into the qualities of macro that this thread focuses on? I don't know, but it seems quite obvious that it in turn will be to an extent easier. It spills over to the rest of the game as well. You are pointing out the very same trend I did: a domino effect. It is natural with a game focused on multitasking. Make one task easier, you have more time for the others, and thus those are easier. Its actually not a bad argument, because few (and really, no one should) will argue that MBS isn't easier than SBS. There are two key things to note though. I argue that, while it will be easier, it will not be significantly easier. This is the first point I wanted to make. I mentioned earlier in this post about the difference in number of actions (action is certainly the more appropriate word in retrospect) and I tried to prove just how insignificant that is in the bigger picture. Secondly, those actions are being made up for in other areas (predominantly micro in the current build, but I'm positive that could change without removing MBS) Had you made an argument that MBS is only threatening because it is one of many "simplification" changes including Unlimited Unit Selection, Auto mining, Smart casting, and Idle worker selection, I would be more inclined to listen to that argument. Maybe together they would add up to a significant decrease in the number of actions required in high level play, with Automining, and Idle worker selection in particular being other aspects of macro effected. This is actually one argument I have a hard time defending, but make no mistake, not because I feel the game would become easier. We already know that Blizzard is adding plenty of tasks on the micro side that will in the end likely balance out the game to still be one that requires high APM. The concession I would make is that overall, a larger percentage of the actions taken in a game, if classified between micro and macro actions, will be on the micro side than was the case in SC1. That said, I still believe the difference will be negligible enough such that the game will maintain the "feel" of Starcraft. Even if that % were to shift, it would be CONSIDERABLY closer to SC1 than WC3 in terms of micro:macro ratio, as the game is far more focused on large armies, heavy expansion play, and no hero units (don't bring up the mothership/queen please! No matter how unique and micro intensive it will be, it is not even close to WC3 heroes). I can agree with most of the rest of what you said. I do feel the other elements of macro are important in the MBS argument, but Southlight already covered them so I will not.
Just want to stress one point:
That actions made up by "adding micro abilities" are not the actions people who are wary of MBS want to see. Said parties want to see actions that keep the same amount of "multi-tasking," actions that force you to think about more than the battle at hand. I'm sure many people groan every time the "adding more micro will suffice" argument is used. It's not about keeping APM's high when you talk about macroing while in mid/late game. It's about keeping the amount of multi-tasking at a level that constantly challenges, even overwhelms the player. So come up with more ideas like the Warp-Gate that add new twists to macro, and not more abilities for units, and I think both sides of the debate can be satisfied. Definitely this is easier said than done though, and hopefully they can come up with something that fills the gap.
But when you talk about the percentage of actions or whatever, I guess that could characterize why there is worry. WC3 didn't harbor the same kind of competitive scene that SC:BW did, and settling for a game that is more like WC3 in any fashion (even if it still feels more like BW than WC3) is what is unnerving for the MBS-doubters.  ... I dunno, I get the sense you get where I'm coming from though, so I'm gonna call it a night at that.
|
I definitely understand you. I'm not sure you caught the whole of my micro:macro action percentage idea, but it basically illustrates your first concern about making the game 'too much micro, not enough macro.' I perfectly understand that point and fully agree. I want the game to have a fair balance, similar to the balance that was achieved in SC1. WC3 had that balance massively tipped towards the micro side, and I know most dedicated SC players do not want that, myself included. That was one of my only concerns against MBS, and is why I pointed it out. It is really important to note though, that in the end, I concluded that the percentage would be extremely similar to SC1 and vastly different than WC3, as it harbors core traits very different than WC3. I listed a couple but these are some of the most important: expansion centric play, large population armies (200>>>>70), no upkeep, very quick gameplay (Fastest speed was the players choice for a reason), etc. These are some of the things that ARE being carried over and I think are some of the REAL defining characteristics of the Starcraft series, not SBS.
For the Oov thing, I think we can agree to disagree. I'm not going to come out and say that the progamers of today have the same skill of those of yesteryear, but I certainly don't think the time passage has been defined by massive bounds in skill. I instead believe that most of the changes progaming has achieved are due heavily to innovative changes in gaming style, whether it was the switch to high expansion play (for all three races - Oov's 3rd base, Savior's 3Hatch build, and of course Bisu Build), or innovative unit usage and game strategies (vulture and wraith revolution, and most of the builds in current use that were never seen in 02). Progaming has developed a lot, and certainly macro has been a part of that, but I don't think it was the biggest development. If you compare Oov's early 3base play to the late game 3base play of those before him, I'm not entirely sure you would see considerably better unit production and straight up macro. Oov was just able to do it earlier.
|
It seems that SC2 is overall being made concerning the proscene and such.
What I mean is that they are trying to make it so that u can "micro" more and with MBS "macro" more as well.
Like someone said before, SC1 was a mistake in how successful it was. The playstyle back then was totally different too. Games would be micro intensive and people would play off one base.
Now we see the fast expansion builds and such and I think Blizzard is trying to further this with MBS but we'll have to see if it all works out once more people have been able to play it and give insight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
