EPTfor those complaining about automining killing macro
[BWWI] Nyo's SC2 review. (*WARNING INSANELY LONG*) - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
drowned
79 Posts
for those complaining about automining killing macro | ||
|
Ki_Do
Korea (South)981 Posts
i see | ||
|
Ra.Xor.2
United States1784 Posts
| ||
|
Woyn
United Kingdom1628 Posts
On July 24 2008 08:44 Nyovne wrote: One of the questions I got in PMs is worth sharing I guess: From Ki_Do Response: So don't worry, you'll still be doing that little iconic SC split at the start but in a different form  .I quite like the sound of this, doing 2-2-2 is pretty close to the our current splits in terms of actions needed. | ||
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
welcome to last year. | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
Just my 2 cents coming from an former above-average warcraft 3 player (top 200-300 europe): I never really liked the feeling of starcraft and I know, this is a kinda weird statement coming from someone who is about to comment on the developement of sc 2. My point nevertheless is, that in my opinion far too many really good sc-players are of the opinion, that sc "must" stay macro-intensive and that blizzard is "obliged" to implement mechanics so the game stays pretty much the same; I think it's really important to realize, that from blizzards point of view sc 2 shouldn't only appeal to former sc players but also to warcraft 3-players or even people of the "age of..."-community; just by emphazising the micro the game definitely does not become less competitive and - referring to the inital post - it will definitely not be possible to play a "perfect"-game....years of warcraft-3 prove that; it seems that some people don't appear to want starcraft 2, but starcraft 1.5 - since everybody (at least considering forums where mostly people post who know what they are talking about) seems to agree, that the micro/macro-balance should stay exactly the same, leaving the player the option of either macroing or microing the aim of my post is NOT to have people agree with my point of view, everybody has different opinions about how a game should be created, I don't see a reason why to convince anybody to think somethin different; but since I (and many that I know from my previous wc3-play) will definitely look into sc 2 if it is more micro-based I want you to think about blizzards task, creating a game that on the one hand attracts as many people as possible and on the other hand is still a challenge on a competitive level; to cut the long story short: please, pretty please STOP being so ignorant to think, that blizzard only wants to satisfy the mass of the noobs out there by implementing MBS and auto-mining - everywhere I look people flame blizzard for they think, blizzard just wants to make the game "easier"; that's simply not the case: blizzard is about to create a new gamestyle that's somewhat between the macro-intensive sc and the micro-intensive wc 3 and both MBS and auto-mining are in my opinion essential parts of this new gamestyle | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On August 03 2008 00:42 IdrA wrote: inform yourself before posting. blizzard has publicly stated that they want to maintain the seperation between the warcraft and starcraft lines in that warcraft is the micro driven world while starcraft maintains a heavy focus on macro. Were did they say that starcraft really needed to maintain a heavy focus on macro? Of what I remember they said that they want starcraft to be about large armies, resource wars and such and not the squad combat style of wc3. However that do not mean that they want the dominant playstyle to be the one were you spend the most of your time in your base producing units. | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On August 03 2008 00:42 IdrA wrote: inform yourself before posting. blizzard has publicly stated that they want to maintain the seperation between the warcraft and starcraft lines in that warcraft is the micro driven world while starcraft maintains a heavy focus on macro. maybe I didn't make my point clear enough - what I meant is about reading between the lines and indeed not at all about what blizzard has published or will ever publishe it's a very obvious fact that blizzard wants to sell as many games as possible and are therefore trying to satisfy both the sc-community and the other communities as well; of course they will never "admit" that because they will get flamed all over the sc-forums, but it's true nonetheless - it's a business, selling as many games as possible is all that counts; what's simply important is, that many people seem to think, that blizzard only tries to make the game more "noob-friendly", which explains the flamewars against everyone who tries to defend MBS/etc.; I don't wanna be mistaken, I completely understand and respect the sc-community and their desire to keep the game macro-based; but you shouldn't be so "ingenuous" to really think that blizzard don't know what they are doing; I mean, come on, it's not like that anyone at blizz sat at his desk thinking "hey, let's implement MBS, would be cool, wouldn't it?" - blizzard obviously thought about those important gameplaychanges long enough and by implementing them nevertheless it's obvious (at least to me) that they really WANT sc 2 to be more micro-based than sc (while of course still being far from the micro-wars of warcraft 3) I think the general discussion really suffers if everybody tries to point out a "mistake" that blizzard in fact never made; of course the korean pros will still complain since they make their living out of it - in sc 2 some of them will probably be replaced by others who are better at micromanagemend, so I also understand why the current top-players don't like this change; but this has absolutely nothing to do with sc 2 being somewhat "less" competitive, since the focus just shifts to micro: but 400 apm will still beat 300 apm | ||
|
drowned
79 Posts
giving a statement to the changes in sc2 it's only the majority of intermediate players who are bashing/flaming the changes ... they always claim that the main point of the game is to differentiate between eachother skillwise but i think its just playing for fun and of course to win they should abandon this "apm & macro equals skill" and search for new ways to show off their abilities in sc2 | ||
|
Tritanis
Poland344 Posts
On August 03 2008 07:21 sleepingdog wrote: but 400 apm will still beat 300 apm Wrong! Player who controls his army and base better will always win, not the one who spams rally points, hotkeys etc ten times per second. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On August 03 2008 18:06 Tritanis wrote: Wrong! Player who controls his army and base better will always win Obviously, apm as every other method is not very good at noting playerskill. In the end its all about who makes the most correct decisions, apm only meassures how many decisions one make only if he do not spam and do not make any difference between good ones and bad. Everyone can click fast, to be skilled you need to be able to think fast or those clicks will be useless. | ||
|
ImgGartok
United States216 Posts
On August 03 2008 18:06 Tritanis wrote: Wrong! Player who controls his army and base better will always win, not the one who spams rally points, hotkeys etc ten times per second. I think that's a given annd he's stating that even though sc2 is "easier" it would still require more apm than physically possible. WC3 for example has a relatively low apm cap at around 200-250 where anything after that is useless. If 400 apm still makes a difference over 300 what does it matter if some aspects of the game are "easier". | ||
|
Guthrek
Canada31 Posts
| ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
so if everyone just focusses on how to "even" out the fact, that all those things take away macro, in my opinion, they are wasting their time since blizzard won't change the gameplay such drastically in this stage; the team of blizzard doesn't consist of morons, of course they are very aware that those implementation will change the gameplay fundamentally - but they have probably made up their mind about this long ago and therefore I highly doubt that they will listen to any suggestions (may they even be very well thought) that will make the game again much more macro-based to resemble the current sc-gamestyle | ||
|
Ra.Xor.2
United States1784 Posts
| ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
? | ||
|
imBLIND
United States2626 Posts
| ||
Nyovne
Netherlands19137 Posts
On August 05 2008 14:53 DrainX wrote: When will this be released in book form ?Haha I deleted so much material I actually could release a damn novella. (This is like 21 pages uni treatise style and I edited another 11 pages worth out ^^) The rest was more beta stuff though, some battle reports, unit evaluations and racial balance. That kinda stuff but it aint really relevant in alpha although entertaining it might be. | ||
|
T-P-S
United States204 Posts
On August 05 2008 20:17 Nyovne wrote: Haha I deleted so much material I actually could release a damn novella. (This is like 21 pages uni treatise style and I edited another 11 pages worth out ^^) The rest was more beta stuff though, some battle reports, unit evaluations and racial balance. That kinda stuff but it aint really relevant in alpha although entertaining it might be. Do you still have all that? I enjoyed reading your OP a ton. Honestly I'd like to read more of what you have to say over sc2. | ||
| ||
