|
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
|
United States1404 Posts
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.
|
United States1404 Posts
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.
|
United States1404 Posts
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.
|
United States1404 Posts
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.
|
This was mentioned a lot in the MBS discussion, but anti-MBS people just cried there were no valid arguments against them, as they still continue to do in the MBS topic.
|
United States1404 Posts
I think there are plenty of valid arguments, but a considerably smaller amount of people qualified to make those arguments.
|
Maybe out of context but that is a horrible statement. Arguments can´t be evaluated based on who made them that is poison for discussions. Right now your post count reads 30, does that mean your points are invalid compared to, say lololols 2748? Of course it doesn´t.
|
United States1404 Posts
I think you misunderstand me. What I originally intended to imply, although I'm sure its still quite offensive, is that many pro-MBS arguments I have read have been from people quite unable to express their views clearly who end up simply obfuscating the issue and helping to create an anti-MBS mentality on a larger scale.
Post count and quality aren't always correlated, but I think post count and dedication are. Someone on the forums who has thousands of posts clearly have a vested interest in the continued success of the community. Thats not to say all people with lower post counts don't, of course, but it is easy to make that assumption. I'm personally quite invested in the community. The success of progaming is vital to me, as its one of the few things I can follow with any regularity and keep coming back for more. What I'm trying to say is, that you are correct that post count shouldn't qualify an argument, but it is still important. Its probably funny seeing that from someone with 30 (now 31!) posts though, lol.
|
I have to commend both Southlight and geno for making such excellent posts in this topic. I've always been fairly pro-MBS, but never had the time to express my thoughts (I just had my finals last week!), so I'm glad to see that there are others here with the open-mindedness to see that MBS isn't all bad 
|
Maybe they will just make the maps even bigger and instead of 1 early expo the standard is to double expo every game... more expos quicker, bigger maps to control, instead of 8 barracks youll get like 20, alot of expos to defend and harras and multitask.
more of everything.
|
United States13896 Posts
On March 12 2008 14:34 geno wrote:
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.
I was reading FConnectionUK's "Return of the Subtitle" thread and I saw some excerpts from conversations between YellOw and TheMarine that he translated. I thought they really have a lot to say about how far progamers' skills have come. Granted YellOw and TheMarine both had their primes come and go by the time Oov started to dominate the scene, but the progression that they talk about in progaming is one that continued past Oov's time and is really pushing the limits of this game. Anyways, these guys know their stuff, and how highly they regard today's progamers is really something to be noted:
Segments of TheMarine's Stimpack Interview Translation I thought was interesting
Yell0w: When I watch Flash play the game, without pretense, I'm amazed. Simply amazing.
I've never seen anyone who can manage the eco as well as he does. Every eco falls into perfect timing. PERFECT timing.
Not only that, it seems like he's spending all his eco, yet he always have spare mineral to expand more...
That really is breathtaking to watch. Is he really calculating all the timing? Or is this by his sense?
TheMarine: I think it's both; he calculates as much as he can, but he relies on his sense as well. In Starcraft, having good sense is the best
Yell0w: To be honest, I don't watch any other progamers play. Not at all. But recently, I watched the game between Flash and Jaedong...
And I saw how Jaedong played. Holy cow! (giggles)
TheMarine: Yes, I know. I thought to myself, you can't get ANY better than THAT!
Yell0w: Goodness... H e i s c r a z y!
TheMarine: Watching him play, I tell that to myself everyday!
Yell0w: In any given circumstance, he reads them all. He's not just good at playing the game... He knows how to win the game.
What I mean by that is, he has a way to win even in the most desperate situation. He's not just GREAT at game (like the rest of the progamers), he KNOWS how to WIN the game.
From the start to finish, everything he does is to WIN the game, heck, I don't even know how to describe this!
Watching him play, upsets me. Even in my PRIME time, was I THAT good? Casting doubt to myself.
Even with Jaedong's skill, win is not guaranteed, then how about me? Depressing...
Perhaps this is the reason my passion to win collapsed...(nervous laugh)
TheMarine: It's amazing that zerg is able to fight so well against Terran at SUCH high level
Yell0w: Flash was up against Jaedong several times recently
TheMarine: 3 series!
Yell0w: When I see Flash practice in our practice house, it is like a new experience. This kid is crazy. Crazyyyyy! Everyone admits his spectacular skill.
TheMarine: In practice house, it seems like Flash would NEVER lose to ANYONE
Yell0w: I kept telling him that he already won. There's no way you will lose with the skill you have.
And he responded in a cute fashion, "Fine then, I'll beat Jaedong easily and advance, ok?"
I told him "I have complete faith in you! Go! Go win your games!" (Thumbs up)
He later came back that day... "Hyung... Sorry..."
Yell0w + TheMarine: LoL
Yell0w: So I watched the game. Yes, Flash made mistakes he never makes, but still! He played extremely well! EVEN THEN, Jaedong's play stands out.
Mutalisks cutting off here and there nonstop. Defiler coming out at the perfect timing, dark swarn here and there.
I told myself... he is a MACHINE. He does EVERYTHING at once. He doesn't lack anything at all.
------------------------------
Yell0w: IF old progamer at his PRIME come to play right now, he would fail. The game level has enhanced so much since then.
Yell0w: At my prime time, I thought I was THE best. There can't be any more improvement from this point on.
Just look at my APM.
Yet time continued to flow and now I ask myself, if I was to come today from the past with my skills at the prime time, will I be successful?
Skills have evolved once more again...
TheMarine: I agree, there was a BIG skill improvement again and again.
As of late, Offense AND defense are both a must at the same time.
TheMarine: Isn't that amusing if you think about it? In our prime time, we felt that... with every effort we moved our hands at the fastest speed we thought was possible. We concluded that our hands cannot be any faster than this.
Especially at my time, the reason why I was most successful was only because my hands were the fastest. Back then 100 apm was the average, if fast, then low 200.
However, I maintain low to mid 300 apms. Then XelloS and Nada's appearance pushed the limit to mid - high 300 apm. I thought THAT was the true limit. Anything above that was humanly impossible.
The end. The end of multitask, the end of micro, the end of macro. That was the impression I had... But now, just look at Bisu... Jaedong... their apm? OVER 400. What's more amusing? All their teammates claim that all their movements are required movements. (Not spam)
And I have nothing to say to that...
Note how YellOw regards that every element of Flash's eco (macro) falls into PERFECT timing. Yes, he used that expletive when referring to that element of his macro. Then he goes on to say that he's "spending all of his eco," yet he still has the timing down for expansions, etc. Both former pros then go on to continue to rave about Flash and Jaedong in such a manner that really gives one the impression that these two are unimaginably good at this game, they can't even put it into words to fully describe it.
So then the fear is, do certain UI changes bring on the possibility of having more people that can reach this sort of level of talent? Because if you can have even more than just a few people be this good, then their skill isn't as special, not as thrilling, and that is where all the worries lie. Anyways this stuff was too good not to try and bring it to your attention geno, for the time being, I'm trying to stay away from this whole Macro/MBS/Auto-mine debate because after certain TL.net interviews with certain SC2 head honchos, I feel that this game is in the right hands. But yeah, thats YellOw talking up there!!! PERFECT he says! Flash really is a prodigious talent, that's for sure.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Seeing as i was quoted, i feel somewhat obligated to reply.
What is macro?
As i laid out in my oov article, its not just unit production and comprising the following elements;- Unit production
- SCV Management
- Supply Management
- Other intrabase work eg factory timing
- Expansion Timing
- (Money management)
In essence, all tasks NOT related to troop movement, tactics or positioning. And only loosely related to strategy.
Strong macro players tend to be able to hold their expansions better and know when to cut workers to maximise their unit production. This is the case with Pusan and Oov. Actually, as pusan developed he tended to use reavers and dark templar more frequently to delay his opponent and using his faster expansions he would always appear to have way too many units.
How does MBS affect macro?
Let's examine each task;- Unit production
- SCV Management
Supply Management
Other intrabase work eg factory timing
Expansion Timing
- (Money management)
This leaves 2 (3~) points remaining; obviously the two production oriented aspects of macro. Now, despite these not being as ""important"" as expansion timing in terms of mass units, as the game refined itself these things became critical to edging out your opponent. You would need to maximise every area to capitalise on your stronger economy.
Up until circa 2006 macro became more about utilising cash than expanding. Players already understood how to build bases at the right time thus the difference in macro basically game down to good mechanics. Because, after all, the production side of things is purely mechanics not sense oriented at all. Thus after about 5~ years of truly competitive gaming macro was reduced to unit production differences. It should be noted, that this was 8 years after bw so its quite a long time.
Obviously, there will be some sort of proscene for SCII and it will be a highly competitive game. For the first 3~5 years MBS isn't going to affect the game dramatically. Sure it will be 'easier' to play but that won't turn into results immediately. There will be new timings and what not, learning how to first capitalise on earlier expansions rather than mechanics then later add in the mechanics to fine tune AFTER 3~5 years.
Now, with no mechanics really necessary then perfect macro will be par for progamers in about 5 years. Whereas we are still refining starcraft macro today. Perhaps maps will change timings etc, i dont know... but i do know that MBS will reduce the time it takes to reach the pinnacle.
What makes a winning gamer?
Obviously, game sense - making the right decisions is SO important in starcraft. Even if you have a large economic advantage (Darkelf) you can still lose by making terrible decisions to a player who is just waiting for a window to exploit (oov). Macro and Micro can be thought of as tools that you use during the game to try get an advantage somehow. But the right decision making and tactics are the paths to true victory which are complemented by Macro and Micro.
How will MBS affect game sense?
A lot, actually. Whereas micro and macro were tools to aid you in making the right tactical decisions now you will (especially as time goes on) macro will be less and less prevalent as a tool as it will quickly approach a uniform standard. Thus this EMPHASIZES game sense above all other qualities even more. In Starcraft, this still holds true - except there is a larger tolerance at lower levels for making bad decisions. In SCII there will be LESS tolerance for such errors.
This means a couple things. After awhile when people have become competent at using MBS to macro, it means the game is HARDER for noobs to get in to. Because an experienced player will always be able to exploit their weaknesses as they will have a very strong tactical base compared to the noob. Seeing as the noob still has to adjust to macro as well, there is simply no hope for him. Perhaps this is counter intuitive to what MBS is trying to achieve, i don't know, but it certainly won't affect your lives until a most things have been standardized.
However, as a consequence, progaming in particular approaches razor thin error margins. Currently, a truly top teir pro can afford to make minor errors against lesser progamers in the area of tactics (see Stork vs Flash @ bluestorm from the OSL group stage) but still come out okay one way or another. But in SCII, it means that as there is less to differentiate the progamers meaning that even a slight error in tactics could decide an entire game making every matchup like ZvZ - where the tiniest infinitesimal mistake can ultimately cost you the game.
|
What I think is most frightening is that if I hotkey buildings as fusiondt said, I will almost NEVER have to go back to my base, and I can totally babysit my army!
In BW, as soon as you have more production buildings than your hotkeys could manage, you HAVE to go to your base and "manually" build units, and you have to send your scvs from your CCs to the minerals.
With MBS and automine, I can just use my hotkeys for unit production (dont need to go back to the base), build SCVs at 5 bases (never need to look inside those bases), I can even shift-build supply depots if I want to! (not sure how effective that is tho). The only real reasons when I want to look at my base is when adding infrastructure (which will go away late game, full tech, 200 supply and as many production buildings as my economy can manage).
This will damage the game in some ways:
Players automatically gain much higher map awareness
This applies to all levels. Being "sneaky" with attacks will be much harder to do since the opponent can focus more time on the minimap and scouting and such.
Players can focus all (almost >.< ) their attention on microing their units
When i watch Boxer pull of some dropship micro move it totally blows me away. When I watch Grubby microing his Blademaster i go "meh".. The reason behind all this? Boxer pulls his shit AT THE SAME TIME as doing LOADS of other stuff, else he would get smashed by the opponents macro! To see perfect micro on one of those unit micro maps out there is not very exciting at all, cause "anyone" can pull it off really.
More production buildings and a higher economy in SC2 does not make macro harder!
In BW, adding 4 Factories mean more clicking and more time managing your unit production. Expoing mean producing SCVs and sending them to minerals at one more location. With MBS and automine I can have all CCs binded to one key, all Factories to other keys (in some nice ratios) and it will be just as easy managing 5 bases as one base.
Lastly, I want to say that MBS will never be a liability in reality because you always have the choice of not using it, i.e just double click your hotkey and manually get the unit mix you want.
|
hm... i duno... your argument really has me convinced that MBS may not be so game breaking after all...
anyway good write up
|
United States13896 Posts
Plexa, your logic there is so clear and to the point, I'd hope anyone trying to explain why MBS is worrying to people that care about the pro scene would cite the points you make.
And yes, that mere thought of watching pro games knowing the margin of error is as thin for every matchup as it is in ZvZ right now sends shudders up my spines.
|
Actually having "razor thin error margins" sounds like the games will be really exciting to watch with virtually perfect play with constant battles and spells flying.
Btw, I love playing ZvZ, it's so fast and such an adrenaline rush, although watching it is not nearly as exciting, because it's just 2 units, no spells and just harrasment and maybe one big battle at the end.
|
On March 14 2008 00:53 lololol wrote:
Actually having "razor thin error margins" sounds like the games will be really exciting to watch with virtually perfect play with constant battles and spells flying.
I would have to agree here. It means the level of play itself will, by necessity, become higher. At least, that's the hope.
Anyways, beyond that, I need to think before I can respond <3 Slow thinkers for the winnnnnnn except in actually playing Starcraft lulz.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On March 13 2008 21:27 []p4NDemik[] wrote:
Plexa, your logic there is so clear and to the point, I'd hope anyone trying to explain why MBS is worrying to people that care about the pro scene would cite the points you make. Honestly, i'm on the fence for MBS - but thank you 
On March 14 2008 00:53 lololol wrote:
Actually having "razor thin error margins" sounds like the games will be really exciting to watch with virtually perfect play with constant battles and spells flying.
Btw, I love playing ZvZ, it's so fast and such an adrenaline rush, although watching it is not nearly as exciting, because it's just 2 units, no spells and just harrasment and maybe one big battle at the end. Not ever matchup will be so intense like ZvZ due to the fundamental features of each race; TvT will still be slow and PvP will be in the middle (no comment about the others yet). But games will be more unpredictable as a result, atleast for awhile after things are standardised.
|
It's good to know there are people in the comminuty that are making deep and accurate analyses of SC2 of this quality so that I can sit back and touch myself without having to worry about the game turning out bad. If other people fight the war, I can reap the benefits.
You're all working for me.
|
The one thing I have to say is with the new direction of SC2, MBS seems almost a necessity. If you consider how harassing has become more focused in SC2 then it becomes obvious that the defending player needs to have a way to quickly counter the harass and maybe mount his own attack simultaneously.
To me this means that SC2 progames will consist of more battles on more fronts, with attacking and defending occurring simultaneously, at faster rates, and with higher levels of complexity. I think that the new direction of macro control greatly effects the relationship between micro vs macro in SC2.
|
"Not another MBS thread."
You do realize when you say, "I don't want to turn this into another MBS thread", you are in fact doing the opposite right? :/
Can we all just get along? Bloody unlikely.
Case in point and I know many of you have heard this before: the SC diehards played the demos and many of them keep telling you it plays/feels just like SC only a bit different. If they were to release the BETA today there would be some problems with the MBS side of things. I assure you of that. Good thing they aren't.
***
Plexa made a lot of good points in the article he wrote but you have to keep things in proper context. It is easy to misinterpret something and it could come off as fuzzy.
With that said here's a condensed version of what led to Oov's success in simple English. Read it. Do what you want with it, but most importantly understand the true meaning behind his success.
The reason Oov was so dominate was because of two things:
1) game sense - it was all about his timing of expoing and he always seemed to be one step ahead of the competition. This isn't debatable.
2) macro - 1 rax to FE anyone? Boxer gave him the big push. In order to beat the man who brought him up he would have to find a way to beat the pioneer of terran strategy and what better way then overwhelm him?
This is a problem unto itself with the current status of pro gaming.
New strategies aren't as frequent anymore and over a certain amount of time players will develop this game sense (things start to become mechanical, or what some would call mundane).
I look forward to what Dustin comes up.
|
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.
If that were true, then Nada would never lose. Timing in general for the early builds is quite easy to memorize and use. However, adapting to the play of others, and adapting the timing of your attacks to coincide with their weakest times is not nearly so easy, and that is what people mean by game sense.
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.
The idea is the MBS allows you time for other kinds of multi-tasking. True multi-tasking should revolve around conducting multiple armies and multiple battlefronts at the same time. Limiting that multi-tasking ability due to an artificial barrier on selecting buildings decreases the watchability and entertainment value of SC.
For example in pro games, do the commentators spend a lot of time watching the buildings and waiting for units to come out? No, the spend their time watching battles, which would occur more frequently and in multiple areas more easily if MBS were included.
Show nested quote +
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?
Think about an example: let's say you have 5 hatches total. 3 in your base, and 2 expos. At the 2 expos, you want drones, and at the 3 in your base, you want fighting units. If you use MBS, there is the liability that you produce the wrong kind of unit at a particular location. Why does this matter since they all rally to the same point? Because LARVAE are a precious resource, and if you use them up producing the wrong kind of unit, you will have to wait before you can make the correct kind of unit at that spot. This puts you slightly behind your opponent, now.
While these might cause some skill differentiation among amateurs, do you really think its going to do the same among progamers?
Again, on the pro level, they can use their speed now to fight multiple battlefronts, to harass more effectively, and to scout, rather than spending seconds clicking on every one of their 15 factories in the middle of a battle.
Multi-tasking is hard, regardless of what activity you do. MBS, however, while getting rid of some of the energy devoted to producing units, allows for more entertaining multi-tasking. In other words, if I can focus on 3 things at a time, I would rather focus on 3 different battles, than 2 battles and 1 equivalent of producing units.
|
I support that. In the essence, the question should not be whether MBS will destroy or not production task skills but whether this shifting is good or not.
As a game watcher, while I'm impressed with flawless multitasking, I'd enjoy to see more tactical variations, with multitasking devoted around fight situations : defense and counterattack at the same time, 2-3 simultaneous exmpansion raids, etc. Granted, all extreme BW player skills won't translate directly into SC2, but top playstyles have always been evolving along the years. Eventually what we use to call "macro" will take a new shape.
|
Its simple: You have more time to manage your army without going back to your base like in SCI so we will have more battles more micro situations but also more macro situations beacause units come in more fluently. Realising this fact it is logical that your opponent will also have more time to attack and you have to defend more often ( drops and highjacks will happen a lot) so all in all you have to go back to your base exactly as much as in SCI.
So all of you dont fear SCII it will stress you just like your beloved predecessor
|
On March 12 2008 09:24 Famehunter wrote:
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.
such a bad post, just because you can say you arent that fast, does not mean there arent thousands upon thousands of other people that can't be that fast, savior is a slow apm player in the professional scene so it is funny you even bring him up. His speed in the zerg demo is actually VERY slow as he was just figuring out how to play the game. It is people like you that MBS is catered too (the ones who don't have a clue). this may be harsh but im sick of people using the argument "OMGZORZ LOOK HOW FAST THEY ARE I COULD NEVER DO THAT"...this doesnt mean noone else could either, sigh err. that is all sorry for being a little rude.
|
I'm going to begin by explaining:
On March 14 2008 14:43 Showtime! wrote:
"Not another MBS thread."
You do realize when you say, "I don't want to turn this into another MBS thread", you are in fact doing the opposite right? :/
It comes down to perspective. My original, and still current, intention with the original post and this thread in general (though the latter is really out of my control) was to peer into SC2 as a whole. It is inevitable that in any discussion of the overall fundamentals of Theorycraft 2 at this point in time that MBS and queuing and automining and other such "noob-friendly" features are brought up, and with good reason, as they are at the midst of the firestorm of discussion. But I wasn't intending to, nor do I particularly want this to be, a discussion focused on MBS, but rather the direction SC2 is taking, of which MBS is a part of. There is a whole series of threads that have been focused on MBS, and I did not intend for my post/thread to be a hijacking of sorts.
By the by, I'm on the fence for MBS as well. I am not particularly for it (as I can sympathize with the argument of people who are against it, it seems logical, after all, that it can dumb down the game too much), nor am I particularly for it, because I see no special reason to. After all, Blizzard says so themselves. They have it to cater to the noobies, but they're willing to cut it out if they feel it's too intrusive to the e-sport nature of the game.
Now, my "retort" of sorts to Plexa, []p4NDemik[] and others, lies primarily in, really, semantics, I suppose.
On March 13 2008 20:04 Plexa wrote:What is macro?As i laid out in my oov article, its not just unit production and comprising the following elements; - Unit production
- SCV Management
- Supply Management
- Other intrabase work eg factory timing
- Expansion Timing
- (Money management)
In essence, all tasks NOT related to troop movement, tactics or positioning. And only loosely related to strategy.
This is a good start. We'll loosely define macro in this way.
What is micro, then?
Brushing up my newfound (I hope) understanding of the dictionary definitions for strategy and tactics, I would label micro is, really, tactics. Minute control of units, general movement, etc. all are a part of micro. But this enters a very gray area, I feel.
For example, ordering an SCV to perform an action, that is, specifically to mine a resource. If this were a marine attacking a unit, this would be considered micro. Yet, the argument about automining would imply that this is generally considered an integral part of macro, despite you controlling a single unit and giving it a very specific order. Then, when you select 5 drones and then give them the order to mine at your natural, in order to "drone drill" into the ramp, this magically becomes micro. At the core, you are simply performing the same task. Yet, because of the intentions, semantically the action becomes the opposite side of our favourite macro vs micro spectrum.
In regard to SC2, there have been a few rumblings so far about this very spectrum. Two units immediately come to mind - the Terran Nomad and the Zerg Queen. Both units have an action that creates a stationary defense, although the Nomad's defense is temporary while the Queen's defense is, as far as I know, permanent. The Nomad's autoturret has always been talked about in the micro sense. It's a spell, after all. The Queen's been given plenty of rumbling about "oh man a hero unit that you're forced to micro." Yet at the core, core root of things, you are clicking on a unit, then building a stationary defense at a particular location. This is, really, no different than selecting a Probe and building a Photon Cannon. The difference is basically semantics - the Probe is a "Worker" and thus every action related to the "Worker" is clearly macro, unless you're fighting with them. As opposed to if you create something with a unit that is not stereotypically defined as a "Worker," that suddenly becomes excess micro baggage.
Obviously this gray ground, especially in the case of the Nomad, seems justified the other way. Technically when you use Psionic Storm with a High Templar, you are creating a very temporary defensive "structure". This is, perhaps, without a doubt "micro."
The point I want to make, however, with this gray ground discussion is what you would call strategy. Everyone knows at the lowest rungs of Starcraft ladders you have what amounts to pure micro/macro slugfests. Most people either play proxy, or they play standard as best they can. As you go up, strategy gets infused to the game. Take, for example, Iris vs Jaedong in the proleague finals, the one that FCUK graciously translated. For about a minute, the commentators rail about how Iris really needed to pull out dropships and turn the tide of the game firmly in his favour, rather than mill about with his giant terran ball. This proved prophetic, as he was simply unable to win the drawn-out macro war when Jaedong's 4 gas kicked in. This was caused by a number of things. One, it was probably physically impossible to control all those units, three bases at once (I believe he expanded to 11 and 9? Plus his Natural), produce out of like 10 barracks, a factory and a starport. He was, in a sense, out-multitasked.
Why did he not make a single dropship, load it with marines and medics, and harass Jaedong?
Did his gameplan fail, or was he unable to adjust? Was he simply overwhelmed by the macro? What does producing a dropship and harassing count as, anyways? Macro? Micro? Strategy?
It was an exciting game, make no mistake, a slugfest between standard and standard. But I have to go back to this quote.
On March 14 2008 14:43 Showtime! wrote:
New strategies aren't as frequent anymore and over a certain amount of time players will develop this game sense (things start to become mechanical, or what some would call mundane).
You have to look back at that Iris game and wonder, had he been given a slight reprieve from his macro-whoring, would he have had the time and thus the inclination to make a dropship, load it with m+m and start harassing the bejeezus out of Jaedong's relatively undefended mineral lines? In a sense, does this strict focus on the two worlds of micro and macro detract from strategy? After all, the proliferation of a "standard" play is because it's simple and allows focus on mechanical micromanagement and macromanagement, rewarding pure multitasking rather than ingenuity. Make no mistake, Starcraft games are still quite epic and exciting, but it does bring a relatively "stale" strategic element into play.
Fast forward to Starcraft 2, where Blizzard is probably working hard to remove these stale assumptions we have of Starcraft. By assumptions I cannot help but wonder if they have become expectations of, to be quite frank, scared players who are so comfortable with their Starcraft playing zone that they don't want to enter a game where many of their old assumptions no longer apply. It's a rather mean and most likely untrue thought, but I think there is a point here. With a game like Starcraft, people feel comfortable with the knowledge that there is a "standard play." It's re-assuring to have order to the chaos. For me, Starcraft 2 represents the possibility of tearing down these structures. I am constantly bemused by the reference of "well if you have MBS you can just spam tanks and vultures so easily OMGWTFBBQ." Yeah, that's in Starcraft. Starcraft is, for better or for worse, not a perfect game, as it has impeccable racial balance and all sorts of other things, but the units are, mm, relatively one-dimensional, so to speak. That's why unit viability in Starcraft is so low. That low unit viability translates into a standard-fare game archetype, which in turn leads to a simple game of efficiency (multitasking and game sense) and naturally churns out "inefficiency."
On March 14 2008 22:16 bp1696 wrote:
True multi-tasking should revolve around conducting multiple armies and multiple battlefronts at the same time. Limiting that multi-tasking ability due to an artificial barrier on selecting buildings decreases the watchability and entertainment value of SC.
For example in pro games, do the commentators spend a lot of time watching the buildings and waiting for units to come out? No, the spend their time watching battles, which would occur more frequently and in multiple areas more easily if MBS were included.
On March 14 2008 22:28 Seelys wrote:
As a game watcher, while I'm impressed with flawless multitasking, I'd enjoy to see more tactical variations, with multitasking devoted around fight situations : defense and counterattack at the same time, 2-3 simultaneous exmpansion raids, etc.
Can Starcraft 2 facilitate this sort of thing? Given what I know about SC2 so far, I certainly get the impression that Blizzard is trying to accomplish this. Yes, right now, an epic clash of lurkers, zerglings, defilers and scourge versus marines, medics, firebats, tanks, and science vessels is a wonder to behold. But 300 games later, it does kind of get stale. Most of these clashes tend to be hangbang (if I spelled that right) or a foolish maneuver. What if you could see these clashes amidst dropship harasses? Right now, we are amazed when we see Nada/Boxer drop on multiple bases at once, while macroing, while fighting in the middle. But the scope of this sort of diversity is incredibly limited in Starcraft. It's a huge thing when we see Casy distract Jy with "Nuclear Launch Detected" and then cleans the lurkers in the middle with superior attention. But what if Starcraft 2 could make it so that becomes the NORM? Does this count purely as micro? I hesitate to label it thus, because I don't consider deciding to dropship harass micro, so much as strategy.
On March 13 2008 20:04 Plexa wrote:
Whereas micro and macro were tools to aid you in making the right tactical decisions now you will (especially as time goes on) macro will be less and less prevalent as a tool as it will quickly approach a uniform standard. Thus this EMPHASIZES game sense above all other qualities even more. In Starcraft, this still holds true - except there is a larger tolerance at lower levels for making bad decisions. In SCII there will be LESS tolerance for such errors.
To illustrate my point with numbers, lets say the current state of Starcraft is thus:
5% Strategy
20% Micro
75% Macro
The reasoning is that macro is the fundamental backbone of all things, and is a big reason why low-econ micro players like Boxer and July tend to struggle. They simply cannot keep up production, and thus fall behind. Likewise, those whom are able to multitask like gods, ala Bisu, Jaedong, Nada, Flash, profit greatly from being able to have stronger mechanical macro. The game, by this point is so standardized with so little deviation that strategy, as whole, is pretty much gone. On every map there is what you would call "the most efficient strategy." Why else would people keep picking 12 hatch over 9 pool? Savior is a good example of a strategy player. He didn't (and still doesn't) have particularly breath-taking micro nor macro, and his APM is actually on the lower end of the pro-gaming scale. Yet his strategic sense used to be so off the charts he was able to dominate for a fair period of time. But once his strategic edge was shunted by adjustments and a brick counter wall, he's been unable to come back. The only real hope for Savior's return at this point would be if he were to come up with a brilliant new strategy to abuse, but the likelihood of another revolution is very not imminent.
Starcraft 2, however, might become more like:
40% Strategy
35% Micro
25% Macro
What happened is the simplification of production tasks (MBS) results in, as Plexa noted, a higher emphasis on strategy, and as a result, execution of each task at hand (micro). Yet when it comes down to it, macro is at the root of strategy (you cannot execute a dropship harass without a starport and a dropship, but you cannot simply make a starport and a dropship, as you'll probably get rocked by timing push, or they'll see it come and prepare, etc.). The heavy amount of thought placed on each and every unit implies that, with the freed up APM, one would be able to create multiple battlefronts, and different units would be able to enter more games more frequently as these various niche become more common. Does this transfer of macro to strategy DETRACT from the game? I don't know.
I'll bring up Warcraft 3. There is no macro to speak of in Warcraft 3. Why is this? Because it is impossible to conjure up a big army to win with. The games are pure micro. Interestingly enough, this semantic brings up strategy into micro, but that's the gist of losing macro.
Starcraft 2, as it stands, is wildly different. You will still lose with an inferior army size. You will still lose with an inferior economy. And you can still have giant clashes of 100 supply armies with streams of reinforcements and blood everywhere. But you might also have multiple supply raids going on at the same time.
Is mineral line defense purely micro?
I wouldn't say so.
So where would you draw the line, and how does this affect Starcraft 2 gameplay?
EDIT:
Piling on, a good example is Boxer. He generates a lot of excitement when he plays. There are two reasons for this.
First, is that he is Boxer, and his name-value brings up plenty of exitement.
But name-value does degenerate over time. What Boxer brings is fresh strategic insight into the game - he likes to think outside the box, and he is one of the few people with the pure micromanagement skills to pull many of these tricks off.
Yet, he is not in the upper echelon of players right now.
Here's food for thought, directly related to this topic. Do you think Boxer should be rewarded for his ingenuity and his ability to execute these plans on a micro level, or do you think flat multitasking gods like Jaedong deserve to reign more than Boxer-esque players, on the sole merit that he is the best at playing sim city while solving a rubik's cube? Is this not the problem we face today with terran players in general? The terran fundamental in Starcraft is so straight-forward, their units so generally unviable, that their game has been whittled down to almost an "exact science" to use Tasteless' words, producing our disdained "fundamental boring terran" and, by natural selection, eliminating ingenuity. I hesitate to label a game that ends up doing this perfect.
|
Yes. It's a problem that there even exists such a thing like "the most efficient strategy" in general on each map, only dependent on the opponent's race, and not dependent on what he's actually doing (example: M&M in a TvZ are efficient against EVERYTHING Z has).
This "problem" should definitely be addressed in SC2.
Because this is what kills the "strategy" in a RTS, and has made SC1 into a mostly macro/multitasking/speed focused game.
Then again, it's incredibly hard to achieve such a goal. But it's Blizzard, they should be well-equipped to throw enough time and money on the problem.
This, by the way, is also a reason why I tend to think that adding a few more hard counters will make the game more interesting, in a tactical and strategical way.
|
On March 15 2008 01:57 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
Yes. It's a problem that there exists such a thing like "the most effective strategy" in general on each map, just dependant on the opponent's race, and not dependent on what he's actually doing (example: M&M in a TvZ are efficient versus EVERYTHING Z has).
This "problem" should definately be addressed in SC2.
Because this is what kills the "strategy" in a RTS, and has made SC1 into a mostly macro/multitasking/speed focused game.
Then again, it's incredibly hard to achieve such a goal. But it's Blizzard, they should be well-equipped to throw enough time and money on the problem.
This, by the way, is also a reason why I tend to think that adding a few more hard counters will make the game more interesting, in a tactical and strategical way.
...since everyone has the most effecient strategies down isnt it logical to think it comes down to micro rather than macro? everyone knows the main builds its just a matter of who executes best, everyone is fast enough in pro gaming every has perfect macro, its alot more about micro and tactics than you realize
|
United States1404 Posts
First off, that conversation between Yellow and TheMarine was awesome. To be sure, players have evolved. They are getting better and better at multitasking. They are able to do more and more at the same time. What Yellow thought was the best a human could possibly achieve when he saw NaDa, has been eclipsed by the likes of Jaedong, Flash, and Bisu. He thought that humans could not possibly get any better at mechanics of the game, and yet they did.
What makes us think that this is the end though? We are constantly reminded of the fact that some people excel beyond what we ever thought possible, in virtually every field. So why shouldn't it be the same with Stacraft? Surely, should the game retain its popularity, someone will come along and show that they can move even faster still. Maybe some day we will see Jaedongs infamous double simultaneous Mutalisk harass in full effect, every ZvT game. There is room for improvement in even the best progamers game. Most people wouldn't dare to point it out, because they think it really is humanly impossible. But someday, it might not be. To be sure, improvement does slow down. It does reach a point of diminishing returns. But just as surely there will always be someone better.
I don't believe Starcraft progamers have reached their limits. Yellow once thought they did, just as I'm sure many observers thought they did when Oov appeared, or Savior, or Bisu, or Jaedong, or Flash. When Dustin Browder said that in Starcraft you had to do 5 things and had time for 2, I don't think he was entirely right. For the average player though it was enough. The pros have continuously topped it though. They began to move fast enough to have time for 3, and then 4. They also found that there was not only 5, but 6, and 7 things they had to be doing, because their opponent certainly was. So why should Starcraft 2 be any different?
The game is not likely to become easier, but I don't think its likely to switch to razor-edge in the way that ZvZ is now either. Sure, one mistake may cost the player a game, but is this not already the case? We've seen Flash take that first, ever so important carrier while in transit before, and rarely has it not won him the game by the end. The only things that keep these games semi-long are the nature of the units involved. Surely if Flash got that first carrier, and didn't make any mistakes, the game was his. But because of a defenders advantage, this became a difficult prospect without a larger army. So instead, Flash would use the time to expand, to tech, to do whatever it took to build on his advantage and win the game.
The difference with ZvZ is the lack of a defenders advantage. Zerglings are too fast, and Mutalisks are too mobile. Whoever wins the first fight, generally wins the game shortly after, because the opponent doesn't have the ability to defend with fewer units. Terran can wall, turret, siege, and bunker to keep the game alive and hope they can catch a mistake of the other player. Protoss have similar abilities. Even zerg has their sunken line for non ZvZ matchups.
I think this aspect will be carried over. Even though close battles can decide games, they won't always, because that opponent will then need to capitalize on their victory in order to win. I have my hopes that even ZvZ will be able to have comebacks in SC2 with proper use of the Queen but thats neither here nor there.
So if SC2 will still be difficult, and still give us razor-edge margin games (the good kind - not the ZvZ kind), whats the problem? Well there is one thats come up. Where has multitasking gone? If Macro has been simplified, and the extra difficulty is going to be coming from potential micro maneuvers, is that going to make the game dull? People will often cite WC3 as a micro-intensive game that didn't make for good entertainment. I would agree. I'm not entirely sure SC2 would play out the same way, but like many others I at least have that fear. I want this to not just be a fun game, but an entertaining one for spectators. Personally, I think WC3s viewability issues stemmed far more from its low unit cap, hero-centric play, and complete lack of macro. SC2 is going to have macro, it is just going to be easier. It will still be there. Units will constantly be killed, and replaced. On top of that, there will be a lot of them. I think that will certainly help its entertainment value.
But I still think there should be something that draws the players attention besides micro. In theory, multiple battlefronts sounds like a good use of the players extra hand speed. But is this really good for observing? You can't follow two battles simultaneously easily as a spectator. There is a reason we don't watch FPVODs except to be amazed or to learn; it doesn't have the same entertainment value. It was easy in SC1 to ignore the other things the player was doing, or at least spend significantly less time than them on it. It was boring, menial. We didn't want to watch them put units into their factories. The players are not usually watching their battles intensely. Indeed many of them go down while the player is working elsewhere. So there was a comfortable balance for spectators. The player had a lot more to do than people cared about, so the observer followed what they did care about. If multiple battlefronts becomes the signature of high level SC2 play, then observers are going to want to watch both. Soon it would be as hectic as watching the FPvods of today.
So it seems almost necessary to me for there to be a portion of the game we aren't seeing as spectators. And the best term to describe this portion? Macro. It is the thing we can all be impressed by, but don't spend most of our time watching. We need it because the games are already almost getting too fast to watch. We can't catch everything that goes down, and obs will often miss a harass because something else was happening. I think this is OK to an extent (just knowing that NaDa is bringing a dropship by a natural during a frontal assault is enough to be pleasantly satisfied), but I'm not sure if it should become a staple of the game. Who knows, maybe it could be exciting element if observed well, but theres no way we will catch all the nuances the progamers would put into it.
As for what they could add to macro to make it require more attention from the player.. I don't know. I'm sure there is a way that doesn't involve having to revert to SBS or other simplification changes, but its beyond my level of theorycrafting. Like I said in my first post, I'm not devoted one way or the other to the MBS debate either. I'm trying to see positives to both sides, and there certainly are. I think all this debate based on theory is useful but it has its limits. Only real, skilled, play testing will show what can be done with SC2, and just how much of an effect the changes will have on the game as a spectator sport. I hope this game makes it to beta soon 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
