| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
GinNtoniC
Sweden2945 Posts
Unfortuantely, the zergs weren't the ones really in need of more macro, but hey what the hell - it's a start. edit: would also like to paste their list of Zerg changes: http://www.starcraftwire.net/articles/664/list-of-new-zerg-changes - can't really see it's been posted before, altho it prolly has. Anyway, there it is. Gogo discussion | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On June 26 2008 16:04 likeaboss wrote: I think MBS is going to allow older and the less skilled to have a chance. Sure it might take away from the greats of the game but I'm personally tired of being called "foriegners". No other e-sport is domianted so badly as korean sc players domiante the world. I mean we couldnt even let any koreans play in tsl cause even amatuers would of knocked all the foriegners out. I think this will allow older players, players with not such high apm, and basically non koreans, to have a shot at keeping up and maybe making sc2 a game where theres no "foriegners" LOL. You are talking about older players as if they are 60 years old with their hands shaking. It's not that they are old, it's just that they play less and don't train on regular basis. To the point. I've read some remarks by bliz at WWI and they say they are trying hard to keep the resourse inflow the same as in sc1 (it encreased because of better pathfinding and AI), so they yet again dropped the minerals per worker trip to 5 but the mining time is shorter they say. So I've been thinking why would you want the same resourse inflow in the first place? I guess noone knows which pace is perfect. So what happens if we don't interfere and leave minerals per trip? Faster mining > more minerals > players have to spend them faster > more building facilities, more units and faster tech (if you have too many minerals you can take gas earlier) > more macro. The point is the game pace stays the same but the macro speed becomes faster. This is exactly what you want to balance out MBS and automining with more macro. But blizzard are changing minerals per trip to 5 which makes the game even slower especially in the beginning and thus makes even less macro. To make it short: by changing the resource inflow speed you can make more\less macro without changing the game speed and only slightly changing micro. This is the perfect way of neglecting MBS effect. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On June 30 2008 09:57 edahl wrote: here here!! well said ...this would ruin one of the most fundamental principle of StarCraft: Simple complexity  I think the whole of the SC competitive scene is held victim by the fact that the SC developers simply aren't that very good gamers, and simply don't want to get skilled but still be competitive. But that's the thing, you can't have one without the other and still have the other. It's very simple logics. If you lower the bar, you lower the level. Casual gamers does not care for their ungosuness, but they still care for a professional gamer's godlike skill. Hey, people can have a lot of fun with StarCraft from thinking having a lot of minerals makes you on a roll, or thinking one GateWay is just fine because it makes zealots.) Hence why Naruto > Blizzard haha | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5834 Posts
On June 30 2008 20:29 Cheerio wrote: LOL. You are talking about older players as if they are 60 years old with their hands shaking. It's not that they are old, it's just that they play less and don't train on regular basis. To the point. I've read some remarks by bliz at WWI and they say they are trying hard to keep the resourse inflow the same as in sc1 (it encreased because of better pathfinding and AI), so they yet again dropped the minerals per worker trip to 5 but the mining time is shorter they say. So I've been thinking why would you want the same resourse inflow in the first place? I guess noone knows which pace is perfect. So what happens if we don't interfere and leave minerals per trip? Faster mining > more minerals > players have to spend them faster > more building facilities, more units and faster tech (if you have too many minerals you can take gas earlier) > more macro. The point is the game pace stays the same but the macro speed becomes faster. This is exactly what you want to balance out MBS and automining with more macro. But blizzard are changing minerals per trip to 5 which makes the game even slower especially in the beginning and thus makes even less macro. To make it short: by changing the resource inflow speed you can make more\less macro without changing the game speed and only slightly changing micro. This is the perfect way of neglecting MBS effect. You're not changing game speed that way, but throwing the game pace off balance. We'd end up with CNC3 type of game this way: spammy, no early-mid-late game transition, etc. ... | ||
|
Ziph
Netherlands970 Posts
when they run out of gas it turn really red and they run out really quick 5min with 3 workers. This is a macro add. also there are already more buildings then in sc1 and the blockage to get at some new mining spots. ps: talking about toss MBS is not the biggest problem its Warp in. All you hvae to do is Press W (select all warp gates) and spam Z Z Z Z Z Z I I I II II SSSS S S S on what ever spot you want and you just do that when ever you see a warpgate is ready really NO FUCKING SKILL AT ALL LOL (atleast remove the interface thing where you can see how many warp gates are ready because all you do it watch that and as soon as you see a warp gate is ready W > Stalker ect. | ||
|
Leath
Canada1724 Posts
| ||
|
teacake
Afghanistan12 Posts
SBS = Single Building Selection e.g. currently in starcraft if you have 5 barracks and you want to build 5 marines you have to select each building one at a time. With MBS you would be able to do it by selecting all 5 buildings, by dragging a box or shift-clicking and then build 5 marines in one go. As this is turning into MBS disussion 7 or whatever... Reading edhals comment just confirms my belief that people have very different expectations about gameplay. In my warcraft background, among the many insults hurled at the other player/team are things like... after you have just destroyed their numerically superior army "make more units noob" after you have lost to their superior numbers "mass more noob" suggesting that massing units is a lower form of gameplay and the skill that deserves respect is micro. compare this with edhals comment that micro is just babysitting and the real skill is making a big army. I'm tired of the idea that it is the middle way and that the real skill is deciding when to micro and when to go and spin the plates, because thats what SBS feels like to me - spinning plates. I hate the artificial macro that blizzard are trying to implement, that thing that you have to click on your gas to get faster harvesting... because player like edhal like to look at his base. | ||
|
edahl
Norway483 Posts
It's not that i like to look at my base so much, but it's a balance in prioritizing what to do. SC2 disrupts that balance, and it's more natural for me talking about hanging around in my base than microing, because I'm already microing too much and that's the problem. It isn't SimCity, but that does not mean it's WC3. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5834 Posts
Pro-MBS crowd just doesn't get it... | ||
|
teacake
Afghanistan12 Posts
If Blizzard caters to one of those three at the expense of the other they are going to get complaints. Speaking as someone who prefers micro, I would hate to see economy and other macro removed from the game. I just can't wait to see the back of sbs. I really just see mbs as making the game more convenient to play and not affecting the competivity. Maybe its my short sightedness. edit - no, maybenexttime I don't get it. and one of the reasons is I don't think thats going to be an issue either because there will always be more to do. You would have to be a supercomputer 100X better than the ones we currently have to do everything perfectly. Recently chess has been cracked, a computer is capable of calculating all the permutaions of the 8x8 64 squares board and the 32 pieces, and this only happened releativley recently. I dont know how many hexagons there are on a standard SC map but I think that with the potential 400 unit in a 1v1 to achieve this level of APM you would require, like a new keyboard with more buttons, more fingers and a much, much bigger brain. It is close to impossible that you won't have anything to do. In fact you will ALWAYS have something to do. Don't worry about it ; ) It is not a trick to allow lazy player to beat gosus. Smarter faster should always win. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
On July 01 2008 00:46 maybenexttime wrote: The point is, most anti-MBS people DO NOT CARE about less clicking MBS brings. They (we) want there to be a need to split the player's ATTENTION. The decision making factor and managing time is key. The "I don't have enough time to do everything so I need to choose" feeling. Pro-MBS crowd just doesn't get it... There shouldn´t be a "need" but definetly a desicion. SBS doesn´t promote desicion making, it just distracts the player. The gas thing is a better aproach there since it allows the player to optimize (or fuck up) his economy. Players COULD live of fumes, in fact that´s not even that worse. SBS and the like belongs in the "have to do" pile. It would be way more interesting and player friendly if all that stuff was in the "can do" pile. For example utilizing Queues, a handy function for "lesser" players but usually avoided by gosus - everyones happy with that. | ||
|
MrRammstein
Poland339 Posts
How can producing units be main factor of enjoyment in the game? How can not letting units die and using them to their full extent be called "babysitting"? Maybe "choosing to macro" is just to avoid harder things to do? | ||
|
wunian
Spain1 Post
On June 25 2008 00:09 Luddite wrote: Here are some ideas that I have: 1)Build more buildings! Increase unit build times, decrease building sizes and costs. Add more tech buildings also. This would force you to spend a lot of time at your base, making buildings. 2)Reduce the number of minerals in most patches, and make a lot of expansion sites on the map. Force players to be constantly expanding, much more so than in BW. 3)Interactive terrain! One of the things that I really like about SC2 is the way the terrain looks. Make it so that workers can build ramps, dig trenches, dam rivers, and push over rocks. This would both open a lot of strategic options, AND it would force you to be constantly controlling your workers to shape the terrain the way you want it. All three of them are interesting. I, myself, was thinking something like: To make to expand more easy and more needed; may be with a new cheap building which acts as gathering point but it can't produce workers, or by simply making Center/Nexus/Hatchery cheaper, reduce the amount of minerals and increasing the number of expansion sites. But, the other two ideas are impressive as well and i like very much the third one --because it would be a really new aspect for Starcraft. My arguments to praise these ideas are: i) They are simple solutions. I mean this, some developer of Blizzard explained that the reason to change from the Reduced Damage way to the Line of Sight way was to make the game more all/nothing, that is, more like a game as Chess... or say as Go is. I suggest, then, that each building is like a game's "piece". This way if more Mineral or more Gas is wanted... then, expand. ii) They are apparent solutions. That is, I think, that for a e-sport it is important that spectators know what is happening, say what is doing each player, this is why to make apparent what they do is important, and Buildings, expansions, and interactions with terrain are apparent visible moves. iii) They would be distinct and innovative solutions. I mean, the more buildings needed and the easy to expand features strengthen the Starcraft distinctive featuring (from Warcraft: few buildings, hard to expand) and the interactions with terrain would be really innovative in this game --as spells' effects are not any more a novelty. Thanks. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
On July 01 2008 02:28 MrRammstein wrote: Isn't calling micro "babysitting" and talking about "choosing between macro and micro" just way to avoid something that requires both clicking and thinking to do something that requires only clicking? How can producing units be main factor of enjoyment in the game? How can not letting units die and using them to their full extent be called "babysitting"? Maybe "choosing to macro" is just to avoid harder things to do? The way I´d LIKE it to be "chosing to macro" would mean to plan/prepare/execute expansions, managing resource floating, optimizing building positions (a bit more mobility there), maybe scrap something, that kind of stuff. I can´t and wouldn´t try to attach something like that to necessary tasks like production or even something simple like unit movement. Pathfinding was improved so wouldn´t it be reasonable to make the moving process harder to "balance it out"? Of course not. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5834 Posts
On July 01 2008 01:49 Unentschieden wrote: There shouldn´t be a "need" but definetly a desicion. SBS doesn´t promote desicion making, it just distracts the player. The gas thing is a better aproach there since it allows the player to optimize (or fuck up) his economy. Players COULD live of fumes, in fact that´s not even that worse. SBS and the like belongs in the "have to do" pile. It would be way more interesting and player friendly if all that stuff was in the "can do" pile. For example utilizing Queues, a handy function for "lesser" players but usually avoided by gosus - everyones happy with that. I was talking about different type of decisions: Do I micro my units to the fullest, and thus gain an (possible) advantage here and now or should I rather focus on macro, and thus gain an (possible) advantage later on? You need to manage your attention/time between micro & macro tasks. SC2 dumbs that joggling down to mostly choosing between different MICRO tasks, and multi-tasking between similar tasks is easier than multi-tasking between inherently different tasks. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
On July 01 2008 06:12 maybenexttime wrote: I was talking about different type of decisions: Do I micro my units to the fullest, and thus gain an (possible) advantage here and now or should I rather focus on macro, and thus gain an (possible) advantage later on? You need to manage your attention/time between micro & macro tasks. SC2 dumbs that joggling down to mostly choosing between different MICRO tasks, and multi-tasking between similar tasks is easier than multi-tasking between inherently different tasks. Shure. But Micro & Macro should intheritly exist next to each other, not opposed to each other. Certain tasks shouldn´t weight down the player if they aren´t optional. SC2 should dumb the juggling down on the very bare bones of the game, the skeleton gameplay. I don´t have problems with time/effort/attention/whatever intensive tasks. But I don´t want to be FORCED to do them, I want to be ENCOURAGED. It gives players more freedom to develop their playstile since there is no "you want to do that? get faster first!" Patronizing. "Juggling" should be in the game but the implementation needs improvement. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On July 01 2008 03:31 G.s)NarutO wrote: Actually MBS works like, if you have 4 gateways / factories whatever on one hotkey, you have to for example press "Z" for zealot 4 times to make all gateways build one, its not that bad and you really get a great overview with a little graphics about it. And I think even if you use automining and MBS it wouldn't change too much. Actually I think automining is more helpfull than MBS to newbies, because MBS just changes: 3t4t5v6v7v8v9v0v to 3ttvvvvvv . You still have to choose what units you are going to build and the unit combinations in Starcraft 2 seem like to feature lots of different units, so MBS wont be a stupid 3zzzzzzzz or something .[...] Oh yeah MBS didnt feel like a problem at all funnily enough[...] On July 01 2008 04:00 FrozenArbiter wrote: PWNED! Told you guys to at least wait till you play it instead of panicking! Oh The sweat taste of victory >Omg that's what I (and several others) suggested for MBS waaaaaaaaaaay back when it was first announced.. Has it always been that way and nobody bothered mentioning it  ?I actually don't mind MBS nearly as much if that's how it works. I'm getting more and more hopeful about sc2 [...] Gah I almost feel silly for worrying about ANYTHING. SC2 seems absolutely brilliant. | ||
|
Inzek
Chile802 Posts
and what about auto mining? how it works? if u set rally probe/drone/scv goes to that patch and if being used to other not used? (so at start, u still gain something by sending them individually?) | ||
|
MrRammstein
Poland339 Posts
 but I wonder too... | ||
|
caution.slip
United States775 Posts
On July 01 2008 11:30 MrRammstein wrote: That reminded me of 2 rally points for Zerg - 1 for attacking units, 1 for Drones to minerals but I wonder too... afaik that's already implemented Okay picture this scene. TvZ mid-late game, vessel cloud, 5 control groups of marines running around, zerg comes in with perfect pincer maneuver and slaughters the marines, but the terran has been keeping up his macro and has 5 more control groups of marines that are rallied outside his base. This happens multiple times in a game but will this situation happen in SC2? You can rally all your marines to go where your army currently is, furthermore, you can control way more than just 60 marines. This was a staple of terran macro in SC. So what happens when you change from controlling half an army at a time to controlling a full army at a time? If your full army gets slaughtered you wont have another full army rallied outside your base. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Weekly
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
