|
On May 03 2008 22:00 LaLuSh wrote:
NrG.ZaM, I like your last argument, as it's reasonable and something that might actually occur.
"In a 25% faster version of starcraft, the game will tend more toward macro and timing than fancy micro. This also makes it less approachable by non-players, since it's fairly simple to watch micro and understand what's going on, but you can't just look at timing. Being required to learn the game before actually making sense of what's happening isn't good for the game as an e-sport."
I agree about the game probably switching more towards macro and timing attacks. But we'll just have to disagree about all of your other paragraphs. The claims you are making in those paragraphs are basically just pulled out of your ass, and hardly anchored in any empirical evidence of the evolution of Starcraft throughout the past 10 years (that's the difference between your comments and mine).
...
I find your style of arguing unnecessarily derrogatory and superior, i call it arrogant. You claim zam spoke too many overly basic arguments and then punish him for it by filling in the blanks with really narrow minded straw mans, and then proclaim with seemingly far too much certainty that those seem to be the only arguments there are to make. The amount of words you spend on inetellectual put-downs does much more to state your superiority than it does to actually create a better debate by simply constructively pointing out the perceived inadequecy of their method. And you seem the type who prefers to insist that your opponent's opinion is in no way understandably reasonable, when you could just state modestly that you think it doesn't make sense, which i find really annoying.
On topic, i really can't see anything wrong with the possibility of a slightly faster speed setting to balance off mbs and such on the ladder, though the game might not require that solution when it comes out. As i understand it sc2 is more micro-oriented now than bw, so speeding it up might just reverse that i guess?
|
|
|
Whoever really even has any interest in playing fastest++ is a big time nerd. If you really want that much speed go stare at a strobe light or somethin. The only thing faster game speeds rewards is repetition. Getting your brain used to the pace and nothing more, if you're a dumbass with no concept of strategy, you'll always be that way. I'm not for slowing the game down to the point of the one article's write wanted, but seriously quit being such nerds and find something to think about other than smashing keys on a keyboard or a mouse. I've switched between FPS and RTS one too many times and everytime I hear the term APM I can't help but think about how nerdy it is.
|
On May 03 2008 22:00 LaLuSh wrote:
NrG.ZaM, I like your last argument, as it's reasonable and something that might actually occur.
"In a 25% faster version of starcraft, the game will tend more toward macro and timing than fancy micro. This also makes it less approachable by non-players, since it's fairly simple to watch micro and understand what's going on, but you can't just look at timing. Being required to learn the game before actually making sense of what's happening isn't good for the game as an e-sport."
I agree about the game probably switching more towards macro and timing attacks. But we'll just have to disagree about all of your other paragraphs. The claims you are making in those paragraphs are basically just pulled out of your ass, and hardly anchored in any empirical evidence of the evolution of Starcraft throughout the past 10 years (that's the difference between your comments and mine).
There's absolutely nothing impossible about handling a 25% faster mining rate while being harassed. Just as there was no problem in handling a ~25%-50% higher mining rate when switching from fast to fastest in SC I. There is nothing superhuman about handling a 25% faster gamerate.
* Basically Starcraft: Brood War has been evolving towards a more macro and timing oriented game ever since its release 1999. Progaming has been evolving towards more macro and timing at a steady pace. I don't think there's any denying this. This is actually happening without actually speeding up the game.
... Therefore I argue that an increased game speed of 25% will not necessarily be a bad thing. Micro is still in the game despite the obvious development in macro and timing attack builds throughout the years. Likewise, micro will prevail a 25% speed increase, just like it prevailed in the switch from fast to fastest.
* Players don't have infinite multitask abilities. How comfy for us that Blizzard has decided to implement MBS and unlimited unit selection then. The recent discussions have often been circled about how to compensate for this lack of macro.
... I argue a 25% FFS (faster fastest setting) will help fill some of the holes that MBS and unlimited selection has left for us. Sure you gotta spend minerals at a 25% higher rate while handling harass. But then again, you can hotkey 10 barracks to one key, you can queue supply depots, you can select 50 marines into one control group. I kind of think it's managable... don't you?
Still haven't gotten one valid argument from you ZaM. Except for that last paragraph, that was well phrased and thought out.
You simply claiming it to be impossible to micro mutas 25% faster and to macro while being harassed at a 25% higher speed setting doesn't make it true.
I'd appreciate if you gave examples as to why it would be impossible. Such as eazo in the comment above, making an comparison to RA2 and stating that there can be such a thing as a "too fast" setting for a game. That's an argument.
What you're doing is claiming stuff pulled out of your ass as truth. And arguing that is impossible.
Actually I pulled the only thing you agreed with out of my ass as well, so you better just forget about agreeing with it.
|
wat i think is that before i get anymore apm my 105-135 apm would be like a 50 apm noob on that setting :/
|
On May 04 2008 06:16 Mergesort wrote:
How can you talk about not even being able to do a proper split at a faster fastest speed when sc2 splits the workers for you? How can you talk about 1.5x speed being macro only when you can have all your gateways in one group? How can you say 2x speed would be way too fast for sc2 (notice the number) if you have barely tested it?
I see nothing wrong with including a 1.25x, 1.5x and 2x speed. A faster setting could even possibly help to balance that what mbs takes away from macro, as long as the game still would be watchable
Since you seem like a complete ass hat i'll respond. My post was simply stating that in SC there exists the ability to play at faster than fastest speeds. I then gave my review of how those ACTUALLY PLAYED GAMES WENT. I see nothing wrong with being an ass hat, and who has really tested SC2? This is a conceptual section of the forums? how many games of SC2 have you played? how many games of sc have you played on speed settings beyond fastest? how many times have you tried to click on objects that move nearly as fast as your mouse pointer? the question isn't macroing at increased speeds, it is microing. I was using splitting workers as an example of how much harder even selecting moving units is at these speeds. maybe take your head out of your ass, and try enjoying the world mkay?
|
Wow guys just stop overtheorycrafting. We have no idea exactly what impact UI/AI improvements will have. We have no idea how easy/hard the game would be with whatever different speed they set it to.
You never tried it, you have no idea! Stop over speculating!
When beta comes, they might add some 1.25x speed 1.5x speed maybe some 5x speed I don't know. But only then we'll try it and we'll be in position to judge it. We might find it too absurdly fast it's unplayable or we might find it actually feels better and more fun/competitive.
But how bad is it to just give it a chance? Just let them try different stuff and see how it goes. After we try it then we judge it.
|
On May 03 2008 20:14 Bash wrote:
In WarCraft 2 Battle.Net Edition Blizz included the speed "fastest" as a joke, as it was roughly twice as fast as the speeds that were common before the days of battle.net. Unfortunately most new players picked up on it and ended up playing a twisted click-fest instead of the game that it was meant to be. It also contributed to the game's downfall by splitting the non-custom community into two factions, those who played the more strategic and microable "even faster" speed and the adrenaline driven fastest players. Not a welcome scenario, to be sure.
Above other arguments, I'll agree with this. We don't need to break apart the gamers. I'll stand by my argument till the end of days that while BW's "fast" feels slow now, it still allowed several strats that are impossible in serious play at "fastest". Putting in a Fastest x 1.5 in SC2 would eliminate certain strats from the game from the get go... typically the timing or micro oriented strats. And yes, I think all the new gamers that would take over the scene in 2 to 3 years from SC2's release would only play on fastest X 1.5 (just like what happened with BW and apparently warcraft2 bnet).
|
I miss the old "Fast" ladders, back when the game first came out and they had some semblance of respectability. Honestly, I see no reason why the game couldn't be made slower than it is currently. Everyone benefits, and it's not like the pro players are going to be any less skilled at their game.
|
|
|
#$VTQERASFGAFAS ahhhhhh!!! AGGRRGGGHHQ#@ Q#$VQEEDF
AGRHRHGH !!!! AGGGHH!!!!!
+ Show Spoiler +AGWEVRQFAHSDFHASDHFASHFH!!!!!!!@#%!#$^!@#$... hahaha 
|
SC2 had a "faster fastest" speeding setting, that will be what most people will be using. People who play for fun will play at that speed. We're use to "fastest" because that was the fastest speed that was offered at a time.
However, too fast might be hard for TV observers to follow. Watching SC1 VODs, it doesn't look too fast especially compared to playing it.
Blizzard will probably retain similar "fastest" speed for SC2.
|
As long as there is a solid competitive gaming community to follow and participate I will support whatever decisions they make for the game.
Let's just pray they make decisions that will draw a competitive gaming community, as opposed to simply cashing in off the starcraft name.
|
On May 07 2008 15:41 jeddus wrote:
As long as there is a solid competitive gaming community to follow and participate I will support whatever decisions they make for the game.
Let's just pray they make decisions that will draw a competitive gaming community, as opposed to simply cashing in off the starcraft name.
Though I want there to be a pro scene, my main concern is that the game be fun to play, not to watch. If it's fun and challenging, competiton will follow.
|
I say go the way they did for the old bw- "fastest" with "fast" for ladder but with bw's "fastest" being equivalent to sc2's "fast". 1.25% sounds perfect to me.
|
|
|
nice to see this idea caught on =)
I approve of the FFS -- faster fastest setting -campaign
And so should you! Being pro-FFS is the new fad after the MBS got so ridicilously outdated.
lololol
the reason FFS is good for the game is because it does two things: it allows for "fun play" - just for kicks games. the other thing it does is balance out the reduced clickage from MBS. people who WANT to have APM battles will still get to.
now this doesn't become a problem for tournaments and esports because they will have a standardized speed setting. (they won't just automatically go with the maximum speed setting. people aren't that retarded when it comes to tournaments.) so to the anti FFS folks who cite the reason for being too fast, that argument is now shot down because it is precisely that. TOO fast. i.e. not meant for actual gameplay, but just for fun.
it also adds flexibility to the game and like people said, a certain "spice"
flexibility, apm balancing out MBS, and for fun. where are the negative points? the negative points all seem to be avoidable, (unless you're retarded and can't standardize the speed setting, or assume everyone will not be able to, of course.)
|
On May 03 2008 13:47 UmmTheHobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2008 12:32 gwho wrote:On May 03 2008 12:16 UmmTheHobo wrote:I think Starcraft's Fastest speed is just perfect. Any faster would ruin it in my opinion. With super fast speed your APM will become so important that it will unbalance the game.  i do think the fastest speed is the best setting. that's why i'm saying it should be crowned and coronated as "normal" in SC2. that perfect speed becomes the norm, and then you can go faster or slower from that point. and it will unbalance the game - that's the whole point. xp for APM freaks and for training. While I think it would be pretty crazy to play it casually sometimes, I don't really think it would help with APM. It wouldn't help for training because it would fuck up your sense of time in the game.
ah you are very correct in saying that it will mess up your timing sense. training for timing attacks and such will be impossible. the aspect of training i was referring to were things like raw APM training. also, if you saw the game more shortened, you could grasp it better in its entirety and get a sense of the flow, the periods, the relative duration of those "periods" (before terran push, tech harassment phase, late game massing phase, etc). yes, the training would be mainly for raw APM. there of course are other uses, and the people will discover those, but it would be wrong to say that FFS would be completely useless for training.
|
Haha, funny idea @ OP
Now with this you if you want to be a real "pro" you better play on fastestest.
Anyways, noone is going to play on anything faster than fastest.. except for fun.
|
if people who have a CAREER in starcraft can´t think/micro/macro perfectly (or even close to perfectly) at the current fastest speed, why is an even faster speed necessary?
good idea but not something i personally would like to be involved in, or eventually forced into
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/6859/fasterthanfastestlj2.jpg)
