EPTSince I find it annoying when I (not always ;/) lose to players the only thing I said is
"D you make please"
Could it be possible to play with some D players around here? Was there any topic or blog about that?
[T] what could replace macro with MBS? - Page 12
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
MrRammstein
Poland339 Posts
Since I find it annoying when I (not always ;/) lose to players the only thing I said is "D you make please" Could it be possible to play with some D players around here? Was there any topic or blog about that? | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
Back when the game was just released and everyone played low econ, no one complained. It's only now that everyone wants to macro like oov. It's so strange. Why should the playing field for production be leveled and the skill be tested just on fighting? That's stupid. Outmacroing your opponent is part of the game. Be it through strategy or through multitasking or whatever. | ||
|
Showtime!
Canada2938 Posts
On July 04 2008 21:20 Unentschieden wrote: Shure I can. SBS by the mechanic itself serves to make the game clunkier to play. It intentionally keeps the players effectivness down. Why wouldn´t the game be competative with a better interface? Damnit, I avoided this thread as long as I could. You know and I know anyone could take what you just wrote and reverse it, so why bother without empirical evidence? Matter of opinions. Same old discussion. Direction: still pretty much going nowhere, but it looks like Blizzard could be on the right track and 'optimal gas features' add to more complexity and dif. build orders, which is different and innovative. I want E-Sports to develop and go further. I don't see this happening with MBS due to the fact MBS is limited in it's own right. In 'real' sports there are so many factors/variables to account for when it comes down to performance, i.e. physique, stamina/endurance, motor skills. Last night, with Sea (top Terran known for his great mechanics and macro) against NonY and JF (two top foreign TvPers mechanically) showed this. NonY and JF weren't even close to his level. Who is to say this would have happened if MBS were part of the UI? When people talk about these guys it is about their strong BOs, mechanics and macro like I said before. There was a huge gap between the Korean Pro Gamer and our top guys. It is possible to play a great macro game close to perfection with a lot of practice. Sea[Shield] emphasizes this point. In order to become a pro at any sport it takes: time, practice and patience. If we want E-Sports to be taken seriously we need these factors to be accountable as well. WC3 player ceo (is he from Norway?!?!? Cannot remember) recently came back after a long hiatus to win a prestigious Blizzard touranment. Sure, this happens in few sports, but not many. An asterisk win at best. You would be degrading what these guys do professionaly. MBS will add less risk and the gap between the professional gamer and amateur gets smaller in my opinion. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
On July 04 2008 23:13 maybenexttime wrote: I'm not saying SBS is essential. I'm for limited MBS, or Blizzard introducing some multi-tasking-heavy macro-mechanics. So far they were unable to design any of those, but at least they're heading the right direction. Agreed. On July 04 2008 23:14 FrozenArbiter wrote: Bullshit, I loved SC as much when I sucked as I do now. The reason that NOW it's sooooooo hard for beginners to get into the game is that it's 10 years old!! With SC2 you'll have a ton of "What's an SCV?" people to play with. Standarts increased. A "good" UI has to be better today than it would have been 10 years ago.I never said that bad UI = bad game. But good game + bad UI < good game + good UI. You are right, there will be plenty of people buying SC2 that didn´t play SC. That´s why it´s so important that the game becomes intuitive and easy to learn. Did the players get worse? I´d say games got better. | ||
|
Showtime!
Canada2938 Posts
'Gamers' are better prepared nowadays. Many people spend hours on end in front of a screen: checking email, checking facebook, checking their messengers, checking their myspace, watching videos and playing video games. Many people are computer literate, being able to do common tasks without much difficulty hence they can type and know where a few keys are with practice. Stop re-hashing your opinion. We got it the first time. Unless you can bring something new to the table please just stop and think again before posting. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
But thank you for noticing my consitency. | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
It also makes me a bit sad that the competitiveness of the game is considered proportional to the inefficiency of the UI ("a RTS is only hard when it's hard to control"). Maybe it's true for SC1, but if that's the case then this should be changed for SC2 ASAP. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
wait what youve spent this whole thread plus multiple other ones arguing that they cant have sbs because it will turn off newbies who dont want to invest time in producing units... and you agree that a 'multi-tasking-heavy macro-mechanic' would be good? what? you do realize that has the exact same effect as sbs right? | ||
|
Showtime!
Canada2938 Posts
On July 04 2008 23:51 Unentschieden wrote: Thats what you think? Games are the same as they always were, just with new optics? By that I figure you´d like SC2 to be SC:BW with better graphics, feel free to correct me. But thank you for noticing my consitency. No, I'm speaking of games in general you ass. Many games today offer no 'new' challenges. Look at EA Sports for example. The company rehashes the same old shit with new rosters (OH MY!) and consumers continue to buy into it. Yet they still have license agreements with the NFL, NHL, NBA, etc. to continue onward. I never said, 'I want SC2 to be SC:BW with better graphics.' If only you read what I posted before you would be able to deduce that. Read shit over before you post. It's really irritating having to deal with trolls like you on a frequent basis. MBS RTSs have shown no 'new' challenges and lack variance and moral fibre. They lack substance. From my deductions, I think it's time to implement a different UI altogether. Hopefully this time you get the message and be able to move on. | ||
|
MrRammstein
Poland339 Posts
On July 05 2008 00:15 IdrA wrote: wait what youve spent this whole thread plus multiple other ones arguing that they cant have sbs because it will turn off newbies who dont want to invest time in producing units... and you agree that a 'multi-tasking-heavy macro-mechanic' would be good? what? you do realize that has the exact same effect as sbs right? Maybe something that means more, like the new gas mechanic? SBS itself keeps attention split only... which yea is good but doesn't create new gameplay by itself; static BOs more, with anything new or different being cheese :/ or at least all in? | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
the new gas mechanic doesnt create new gameplay except varying the units you can get later in the game a bit more its just an artificially contrived waste of time that theyre trying to force on the game (literally, theyve modified the entire economic setup to try to make it useful, making everything gas intensive and setting it up so the geysers deplete insanely fast) because newbies are scaring them off of sbs for no good reason. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
On July 05 2008 00:15 IdrA wrote: wait what youve spent this whole thread plus multiple other ones arguing that they cant have sbs because it will turn off newbies who dont want to invest time in producing units... and you agree that a 'multi-tasking-heavy macro-mechanic' would be good? what? you do realize that has the exact same effect as sbs right? SBS drags you down by burdening you with the task, you don´t optimize your gains, you minimize your inefficiency. Production buildings are build in "clump" to be able to accsess them as fast as possible. The gas mechanic is also multi tasking heavy since you have to order your peons on the minerals during the 45 sec offtime for optimal efficiency - or you can just ignore that. You can live on fumes if you don´t have the time to worry about that. The difference - and this is important - is that this one is optional. It allows you to sink more and more APM into the game without ruining players below a certain level/speed. On July 05 2008 00:28 Showtime! wrote:I think it's time to implement a different UI altogether. Better than MBS OR SBS? Hell yeah! | ||
|
Showtime!
Canada2938 Posts
It could add some variation and more importance to gas expos. Perhaps Blizzard is aiming for a slightly faster pace, getting away from games being dragged out, and so forth. I guess they believe dif. gas collecting features will help players get out of stagnant situations when it becomes a mineral only game and add new variety. 12 minute games from 15 minute games on average wouldn't be so bad. I think it pushes players in more directions. VARIABLES :D It really has to be tested. Hardcore. | ||
|
MrRammstein
Poland339 Posts
On July 05 2008 00:42 IdrA wrote: sbs does create gameplay, it forces players to choose between micro and macro, since both are time consuming and you have limited time. some players choose to focus on macro and you end up with oov-style players, some players choose to focus on micro and you end up with boxer-style players. What I mean more is as games go forward and resources income grows, room for variations like"go Cars or Arbiters? or maybe more Storm Drops?" or any other accessible for other races is getting smaller - interaction with units is simplified to focus on macro more. As seen in last Boxer's TvP - micro isn't rewarding that much when players get rusty and simply slow down, even being sharp as ever. But can we truly say that we want this new Boxer? Wouldn't be "Boxer v1.0" be even more fun to watch? the new gas mechanic doesnt create new gameplay except varying the units you can get later in the game a bit more its just an artificially contrived waste of time that theyre trying to force on the game (literally, theyve modified the entire economic setup to try to make it useful, making everything gas intensive and setting it up so the geysers deplete insanely fast) because newbies are scaring them off of sbs for no good reason. But this isn't final build and the truth may be it's meant to scare shit out of all of us just to take it easier when if it won't end so much gas stressed as is now. + in general units based on gas more potentially always do bigger damage or like Carriers not necessarily bigger but way more crucial as they can fly and abuse terrain obstacles. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On July 05 2008 00:55 Showtime! wrote: IdrA, how much faster do they deplete? I'd like to know from your few days of testing. I think it still might have some value once we get precision timing and strong BOs out. But, I don't know because I wasn't at this BWWI. It could add some variation and more importance to gas expos. Perhaps Blizzard is aiming for a slightly faster pace, getting away from games being dragged out, and so forth. I guess they believe dif. gas collecting features will help players get out of stagnant situations when it becomes a mineral only game and add new variety. 12 minute games from 15 minute games on average wouldn't be so bad. I think it pushes players in more directions. VARIABLES :D It really has to be tested. Hardcore. honestly i really think theyre just desperate for a way to make macro meaningful while keeping mbs and they just made everything deplete fast/gas intensive so that the new gas mechanic would be a necessary macro feature. as for the speed, every geyser was 1000 gas and i *think* it mined at like 6 gas per trip? but it felt even faster than that would imply, if you did anything but fast expand your first geyser would be depleted before your expo was up (you get 2 geysers per base though). | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On July 05 2008 01:05 MrRammstein wrote: What I mean more is as games go forward and resources income grows, room for variations like"go Cars or Arbiters? or maybe more Storm Drops?" or any other accessible for other races is getting smaller - interaction with units is simplified to focus on macro more. you cant choose between carr/arb/storm drop in sc1? i dont see how the gas mechanic changes that. the only limitation is if you dont have enough gas, and the only reason you wouldnt have enough gas is because theyre setting the game up to prevent you from having enough gas without using the mechanic. (so theyre creating a problem in order to force you to use the solution, so just dont put in the problem in the first place) As seen in last Boxer's TvP - micro isn't rewarding that much when players get rusty and simply slow down, even being sharp as ever. But can we truly say that we want this new Boxer? Wouldn't be "Boxer v1.0" be even more fun to watch? you're referencing a player who has been in the army for over a year competing with full time progamers to make a point? the fact that boxer still wins games at all kinda proves that his style is viable. But this isn't final build and the truth may be it's meant to scare shit out of all of us just to take it easier when if it won't end so much gas stressed as is now. + in general units based on gas more potentially always do bigger damage or like Carriers not necessarily bigger but way more crucial as they can fly and abuse terrain obstacles. that didnt really respond to anything i said so :D | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On July 05 2008 00:52 Unentschieden wrote: SBS drags you down by burdening you with the task, you don´t optimize your gains, you minimize your inefficiency. Production buildings are build in "clump" to be able to accsess them as fast as possible. The gas mechanic is also multi tasking heavy since you have to order your peons on the minerals during the 45 sec offtime for optimal efficiency - or you can just ignore that. You can live on fumes if you don´t have the time to worry about that. The difference - and this is important - is that this one is optional. It allows you to sink more and more APM into the game without ruining players below a certain level/speed. Better than MBS OR SBS? Hell yeah! and anything that serves the purpose that is needed (force people to invest time in macro) is going to 'burden you with a task' (how is playing the game a task?). who cares if its minimizing efficiency or maximing gains or whatever, it produces a better game to force people to spend time on macro. (for reasons gone over several hundred times in past threads that you have been a part of) the gas mechanic would not really be optional. imagine you're pvping someone who is of the same skill level as you. everything is equal, except he uses the new gas mechanic and you dont. late game, you have a bunch of zealots and a few stalkers, he has an archon/collosus/zealot army. who wins? (not you) now, if you're both too slow to use the mechanic then yes you'll both be fine. but then youd both be too slow to produce efficiently with sbs, so whats the difference? | ||
|
inlagdsil
Canada957 Posts
On July 04 2008 20:39 0xDEADBEEF wrote: You're saying that like it's a proven fact that MBS is bad for the game... but the fear of MBS is mainly speculation. The game must be finished and played a lot until one can say this for sure. And @Idra: You seem to think that players will have predefined "roles" or so which they can't escape from, like "70% will be noobs who will move on to the next flashy game within a few months, so only the remaining 30% will matter". That's just not true... the noobs are very important (as strange as that may sound) because everything starts with them... old progamers like Boxer and Yellow mentioned in interviews that they started playing because it was FUN. Many Koreans started playing it because it was fun. Not because they foresaw some glorious e-sport future for the game. Then they got kinda addicted and played a lot to become better and better. Eventually they became progamers. But they started out as noobs who just wanted fun. The desire to become the best only came later on. So if you make the game less fun for noobs, there will be less noobs starting the game, and therefore there will be less progamers later on. Which means less competition at very high levels, which means an uninteresting e-sport. Also be aware that many of the current SC players won't play SC2 anymore, or at least won't play it for long. Because they get older and have other duties. So SC2 will mainly be played by newer generations. Please read my post over and you would see that I am not taking a stand on whether MBS is good or not, I am saying it's inevitable. I have no idea how it will play out. Also, abour your reply to Idra, we don't know if gamers will stop playing as they get older, because video games are so new that the original video game generation is still playing. I don't want to argue about the above points, what I want is for people to discuss the merits of the mechanic that I suggested. That is: When you select several buildings at a time to produce units, their training time increases slightly, let's say, by 5%. This way, players who are able to select each building individually get a real advantage, but this subtle difference won't matter to noobs (who don't produce anything at their facilities half the time anyway  ) | ||
|
MrRammstein
Poland339 Posts
dropping HTs after Zeals that draw fire, at least close enough to any mineral line if not in Storm's range of it. Boxer is in team that I can't recall being worst of all 12 atm; his position there is secured as Ace doesn't recruit more players as far as I know. Whatever takes his time now every day doesn't prevent him from playing at all but the point is he is limited to BW macro the most as it requires more and more attention with every additional expo. We really can watch armies clashing using attack-move with few Recalls and EMPs here and there but haven't gameplay based on out-macroing been severely nerfed with for example Immortals and new M&M combo or Marauders + Jackals/whatever to stay with TvP? Can it be as much reliable? | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5869 Posts
On July 05 2008 01:31 inlagdsil wrote: Please read my post over and you would see that I am not taking a stand on whether MBS is good or not, I am saying it's inevitable. I have no idea how it will play out. Also, abour your reply to Idra, we don't know if gamers will stop playing as they get older, because video games are so new that the original video game generation is still playing. I don't want to argue about the above points, what I want is for people to discuss the merits of the mechanic that I suggested. That is: When you select several buildings at a time to produce units, their training time increases slightly, let's say, by 5%. This way, players who are able to select each building individually get a real advantage, but this subtle difference won't matter to noobs (who don't produce anything at their facilities half the time anyway )The problem then would be a lot of whiny wc3 players who want wc4 (no macro) and think sc2 is going to be a substitute. They basically want a game where you essentially DON'T have to focus on macro. | ||
| ||
