|
On December 08 2008 03:08 NatsuTerran wrote:
And no, you can very easily tell how legitimately difficult a game is by playing by yourself. Starcraft macro is still fairly difficult even without an opponent.
Like I said, most of the starcraft macro is based on punishment. That is, most of the macro in Starcraft is a mandatory that even noobs have to do in order to play the game. That's why you can see it even when you don't have any opponent.
But everything changes once we apply "easy to learn hard to master" concept. Once we change it from being advantageous instead of being punishing, you don't need it anymore to win against inferior players. The importance and hardness get apparent only when someone uses this advantage and defeats you with it. Hence, you can't see how much skill it requires in reality without being involved in heavy competition.
For example: micro in starcraft. For the most part (ignoring unit selection limit) it's "easy to learn and hard to master". And look how it works in the game when you play vastly inferior opponent - you don't need to have a good flank, you don't need to have good storms (in fact you don't even need to use storms) and so on. And when you are playing skirmish against computers all what you have to do is literally a-move opponent to death. The only reason why you can see without playing true opponent that micro in, for example, Armies of Exigo can be potentially very hard, is because it's very similar to SC:BW micro and you experienced all the difficulty of it when you were laddering in SC:BW.
Clear enough?
What does that zerg example have to do with anything?
That zerg example is a macromanagement just like when Flash sends scvs to build turrets around the map in TvT. Spawning creep with an overseer is a macromanagement.
Are you required to spawn creep on every square inch of the map in SC2?
Having the path from your base to your opponent's base covered with creep will bring your ground units to your opponent's base 30% faster. It's much bigger advantage than you get from perfect 4z5z6z7z8z.
You figure out.
|
On December 08 2008 03:08 NatsuTerran wrote:
What does that zerg example have to do with anything? Are you required to spawn creep on every square inch of the map in SC2? And no, you can very easily tell how legitimately difficult a game is by playing by yourself. Starcraft macro is still fairly difficult even without an opponent.
Yep - is that a good thing though? That is the core issue. What is "legitimate Difficulty" in a Multiplayer centric title? How much of the "difficulty" should depend on your enemys skills and how much on the game itself? I´d prefer as much "enemybased difficulty" as possible.
Edit: Basically what InRaged said.
|
On December 08 2008 05:16 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2008 03:08 NatsuTerran wrote:
What does that zerg example have to do with anything? Are you required to spawn creep on every square inch of the map in SC2? And no, you can very easily tell how legitimately difficult a game is by playing by yourself. Starcraft macro is still fairly difficult even without an opponent. Yep - is that a good thing though? That is the core issue. What is "legitimate Difficulty" in a Multiplayer centric title? How much of the "difficulty" should depend on your enemys skills and how much on the game itself? I´d prefer as much "enemybased difficulty" as possible. Edit: Basically what InRaged said.
Go play WC3 then since there's no macro. It's obvious you don't enjoy BW for what it is. SC2 should be a lot like BW in its core elements. If it's not, then how is it a proper sequel?
Look, your argument doesn't even make sense. Both players have to contend with creating a flawless production line of macro. It's a skill. How you and your opponent match-up in this element of the game bears on the outcome. Unlike WC3, macro is a strategy in BW. How is removing almost an entire facet of the game a positive? The suggestion doesn't even have a sensible place in the discussion. Mechanics are a large part of BW.
So leave my game alone, please. I'm not trying to insult you or be elitist, because again, it's all about preference, not right or wrong. If you want MBS and automine, there are other games that already have it. Go do that, and leave my game alone.
|
Practicing macro, climbing that ladder of improvement upon my own mechanics and dexterity has been an essential part of the joy that starcraft brings me.
It is hard for me to imagine myself enjoying sc2 as much as BW without the elements of this self improvement.
I'm sure a lot of us feel this way. But i'm willing to reserve my judgment on MBS and Mind>Execution til the game comes out and i play it. Give it a chance guys
|
On December 09 2008 06:02 A3iL3r0n wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2008 05:16 Unentschieden wrote:On December 08 2008 03:08 NatsuTerran wrote:
What does that zerg example have to do with anything? Are you required to spawn creep on every square inch of the map in SC2? And no, you can very easily tell how legitimately difficult a game is by playing by yourself. Starcraft macro is still fairly difficult even without an opponent. Yep - is that a good thing though? That is the core issue. What is "legitimate Difficulty" in a Multiplayer centric title? How much of the "difficulty" should depend on your enemys skills and how much on the game itself? I´d prefer as much "enemybased difficulty" as possible. Edit: Basically what InRaged said. Go play WC3 then since there's no macro. It's obvious you don't enjoy BW for what it is. SC2 should be a lot like BW in its core elements. If it's not, then how is it a proper sequel? Look, your argument doesn't even make sense. Both players have to contend with creating a flawless production line of macro. It's a skill. How you and your opponent match-up in this element of the game bears on the outcome. Unlike WC3, macro is a strategy in BW. How is removing almost an entire facet of the game a positive? The suggestion doesn't even have a sensible place in the discussion. Mechanics are a large part of BW. So leave my game alone, please. I'm not trying to insult you or be elitist, because again, it's all about preference, not right or wrong. If you want MBS and automine, there are other games that already have it. Go do that, and leave my game alone.
Did you even read what's been written before responding? I don't want to waste time responding if you haven't read anything, so just tell, did you read posts prior to your respond? And if you did, how come it, you haven't understood a single word?
And about bringing WC3 in this discussion... go get yourself banned somehow, please.
|
On December 09 2008 06:02 A3iL3r0n wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2008 05:16 Unentschieden wrote:On December 08 2008 03:08 NatsuTerran wrote:
What does that zerg example have to do with anything? Are you required to spawn creep on every square inch of the map in SC2? And no, you can very easily tell how legitimately difficult a game is by playing by yourself. Starcraft macro is still fairly difficult even without an opponent. Yep - is that a good thing though? That is the core issue. What is "legitimate Difficulty" in a Multiplayer centric title? How much of the "difficulty" should depend on your enemys skills and how much on the game itself? I´d prefer as much "enemybased difficulty" as possible. Edit: Basically what InRaged said. Go play WC3 then since there's no macro. It's obvious you don't enjoy BW for what it is. SC2 should be a lot like BW in its core elements. If it's not, then how is it a proper sequel? Look, your argument doesn't even make sense. Both players have to contend with creating a flawless production line of macro. It's a skill. How you and your opponent match-up in this element of the game bears on the outcome. Unlike WC3, macro is a strategy in BW. How is removing almost an entire facet of the game a positive? The suggestion doesn't even have a sensible place in the discussion. Mechanics are a large part of BW. So leave my game alone, please. I'm not trying to insult you or be elitist, because again, it's all about preference, not right or wrong. If you want MBS and automine, there are other games that already have it. Go do that, and leave my game alone.
I was just wandering that perhaps it has occured to someone that actually macro in SC2 will be much the same as in SCBW as of this stage of game development.
Right now, Bisu needs to spend approximately 1 second to produce from 10 gateways, in SC2 it will take him almost the same amount of time (hotkey + 10x another key pressing). I know you won't have to go back to your base any more but while producing units from numerous production buildings which can take a couple of seconds your hands as to micro/whatever are tied.
So basically in SC2 decision between micro/macro will have the same impact on the game since macroing will still be time consuming. The only difference is that you will be able to watch the battles while doing so which opens up some interesting decisionmaking - will I gain more by producing more units or by breaking my macro to micro the units?
Just my 2 cents.
|
On December 09 2008 06:43 InRaged wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2008 06:02 A3iL3r0n wrote:On December 08 2008 05:16 Unentschieden wrote:On December 08 2008 03:08 NatsuTerran wrote:
What does that zerg example have to do with anything? Are you required to spawn creep on every square inch of the map in SC2? And no, you can very easily tell how legitimately difficult a game is by playing by yourself. Starcraft macro is still fairly difficult even without an opponent. Yep - is that a good thing though? That is the core issue. What is "legitimate Difficulty" in a Multiplayer centric title? How much of the "difficulty" should depend on your enemys skills and how much on the game itself? I´d prefer as much "enemybased difficulty" as possible. Edit: Basically what InRaged said. Go play WC3 then since there's no macro. It's obvious you don't enjoy BW for what it is. SC2 should be a lot like BW in its core elements. If it's not, then how is it a proper sequel? Look, your argument doesn't even make sense. Both players have to contend with creating a flawless production line of macro. It's a skill. How you and your opponent match-up in this element of the game bears on the outcome. Unlike WC3, macro is a strategy in BW. How is removing almost an entire facet of the game a positive? The suggestion doesn't even have a sensible place in the discussion. Mechanics are a large part of BW. So leave my game alone, please. I'm not trying to insult you or be elitist, because again, it's all about preference, not right or wrong. If you want MBS and automine, there are other games that already have it. Go do that, and leave my game alone. Did you even read what's been written before responding? I don't want to waste time responding if you haven't read anything, so just tell, did you read posts prior to your respond? And if you did, how come it, you haven't understood a single word? And about bringing WC3 in this discussion... go get yourself banned somehow, please.
I guess I missed the mark completely. Why don't you explain to me what this thread is about.
|
On December 09 2008 07:17 A3iL3r0n wrote:
I guess I missed the mark completely. Why don't you explain to me what this thread is about.
Um, how should I put it for you... You missed the point of the Unentschieden's post.
There's nothing wrong in missing the point of the thread - thread is huge and it may have many different discussions inside. That's not the problem here at all.
The problem is that you somehow managed to misinterpret five short sentences. I am sorry, I can't explain the point of them better, than I did in the post immediately above of Unentschieden's post, where he's partially referring to
And about this...
On December 09 2008 06:02 A3iL3r0n wrote:
Unlike WC3, macro is a strategy in BW. How is removing almost an entire facet of the game a positive? The suggestion doesn't even have a sensible place in the discussion. Mechanics are a large part of BW.
... did you just really said that? I mean, Really?
[edit] oh, oops. You can misread it again. Huge part of the macro is indeed a strategy in BW, but that's not why I marked this part of your post in bold
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 09 2008 07:05 Manit0u wrote:
Right now, Bisu needs to spend approximately 1 second to produce from 10 gateways, in SC2 it will take him almost the same amount of time (hotkey + 10x another key pressing). I know you won't have to go back to your base any more but while producing units from numerous production buildings which can take a couple of seconds your hands as to micro/whatever are tied.
So basically in SC2 decision between micro/macro will have the same impact on the game since macroing will still be time consuming. The only difference is that you will be able to watch the battles while doing so which opens up some interesting decisionmaking - will I gain more by producing more units or by breaking my macro to micro the units?
Just my 2 cents.
The difference is that in SC1, you have to shift visual and mental focus to production, since you have to scroll through all your gateways. In SC2, you can jam all your gateways (or even all production buildings) on a single hotkey, and just hit it without having to shift focus to your base (therefore maintaining full mental awareness of your army). In SC1, macro and micro entails a tradeoff because you have to shift focus, not because the actions are inherently time consuming, knowing when to focus on one thing or another. How is removing that a good thing?
|
The only difference is that by not shifting focus you allow players for more flexibility, is it a bad thing?
|
On December 13 2008 00:57 Manit0u wrote:
The only difference is that by not shifting focus you allow players for more flexibility, is it a bad thing?
The point being that in SC1 you have to choose between macro and micro at any given point in time. You can't do both simultaneously once you get more production buildings than you have hotkeys. This requires more multitasking and skill to do.
You're right when you say it would allow the players more "flexibility" in a sense. It would allow them to never take their mind off of micro since macro doesn't require them to divert attention away from micro. But that makes things easier. It takes away from the speed and multitasking ability required by the pros. Imagine if you could select a shuttle with HTs and it had a "Go find an expansion and storm drop it" button. It would allow the player to focus more on his/her main army instead of harassing hence more "flexibility" but is a fairly obvious decrease in skill requirement.
|
its a pity that the best games of the rts genre are the older ones
|
The best games of any genre are the older ones.... Game development is really going down the drain to appease the casual crowd who plays games like they watch movies.
|
On December 13 2008 02:17 Phyre wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2008 00:57 Manit0u wrote:
The only difference is that by not shifting focus you allow players for more flexibility, is it a bad thing? It would allow them to never take their mind off of micro since macro doesn't require them to divert attention away from micro.
But it does require from them a decision: do I micro or do I macro? This decision is even harder now because you can kind of 'change your mind' mid-macro seeing how bad your troops are faring and then you desperately drop macro and try to micro like crazy but it's too late and you're way behind because you a) didn't macro as hard as you should and/or b) you didn't micro enough/it came too late and your army is screwed.
In my opinion micro/macro decisions with the new system will require more balls then now since you will be able to switch between micro/macro more fluently thus giving way more options for both you and your oponent to exploit in order to get ahead. Timings will be even more important and getting the good balance between micro and macro in various situations will be a skill itself.
It's like going from binary to decimal. Number of new possibilities is mind-numbing.
|
On December 13 2008 02:17 Phyre wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2008 00:57 Manit0u wrote:
The only difference is that by not shifting focus you allow players for more flexibility, is it a bad thing? The point being that in SC1 you have to choose between macro and micro at any given point in time. You can't do both simultaneously once you get more production buildings than you have hotkeys. This requires more multitasking and skill to do.
Which is why you should be overjoyed to know that the worker juggling of extractor shutdowns will force exactly this behaviour!
But you are not, instead you are screaming that this do not make any sense at all and that it will just create boring repetitive tasks which do not add anything worthwhile at all.
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 13 2008 02:47 Manit0u wrote:
But it does require from them a decision: do I micro or do I macro? This decision is even harder now because you can kind of 'change your mind' mid-macro seeing how bad your troops are faring and then you desperately drop macro and try to micro like crazy but it's too late and you're way behind because you a) didn't macro as hard as you should and/or b) you didn't micro enough/it came too late and your army is screwed.
Before, you had to gauge whether or not it was safe to go back to look at your base to macro, because you couldn't watch what was going on in both places at once. Now you can macro WHILE looking at your army, just by hitting 7zzzzz, so you will know the moment microing becomes necessary. Its not a decision anymore, because the right answer is immediately apparent in every case.
On December 13 2008 02:48 Klockan3 wrote:
Which is why you should be overjoyed to know that the worker juggling of extractor shutdowns will force exactly this behaviour!
But you are not, instead you are screaming that this do not make any sense at all and that it will just create boring repetitive tasks which do not add anything worthwhile at all.
We're screaming because the new boring repetitive tasks accomplish the same thing that the old boring repetitive tasks did. The idea is that its pointless to create something new that does the same thing that the old system did anyway.
Ever heard the phrase "if it isn't broken, don't fix it?" Its been overused in relation to SC2, but its worth using here. There's no point in using a new menial task that feels unnatural in favor of an old one, that everyone's used to, especially since the new one doesn't do anything the old one didn't.
I'd be fine with the gas mechanic if they added a slow gas refill rate so that there was some strategic aspect to it beyond the multitasking (e.g. more workers on gas gets you better long-term gas mining, but worse short-term). As it stands, its just a clunkier version of automining.
|
On December 13 2008 02:57 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2008 02:48 Klockan3 wrote:
Which is why you should be overjoyed to know that the worker juggling of extractor shutdowns will force exactly this behaviour!
But you are not, instead you are screaming that this do not make any sense at all and that it will just create boring repetitive tasks which do not add anything worthwhile at all. We're screaming because the new boring repetitive tasks accomplish the same thing that the old boring repetitive tasks did. The idea is that its pointless to create something new that does the same thing that the old system did anyway. Ever heard the phrase "if it isn't broken, don't fix it?" Its been overused in relation to SC2, but its worth using here. There's no point in using a new menial task that feels unnatural in favor of an old one, that everyone's used to, especially since the new one doesn't do anything the old one didn't.
There is a difference, the new one is not required at all if you are just going to play the game casually. But you all seem to ignore this and still screams since it is a small nuisance adapting to it for you.
|
On December 13 2008 00:57 Manit0u wrote:
The only difference is that by not shifting focus you allow players for more flexibility, is it a bad thing?
No, no, no. This shifting focus thingie also brings into the game such entertaining feature as Random Sudden Death. Think of ZvP: you just killed enemy army and decide to go back to your base for 2 seconds to do non sensual, but very important stuff like ordering drones to mine and to click at buildings, then you see red dot at the minimap and immediately come back to your hydras only to find that they are ALL DIED to couple psi-storms. This amazing feature helps to keep such monsters as Jaedong on the ground, so not so great Protoss players would get lucky once in a while and take game from him. Without it he’ll be just unstoppable and that’s not acceptable.
On December 13 2008 02:17 Phyre wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2008 00:57 Manit0u wrote:
The only difference is that by not shifting focus you allow players for more flexibility, is it a bad thing? You're right when you say it would allow the players more "flexibility" in a sense. It would allow them to never take their mind off of micro since macro doesn't require them to divert attention away from micro. But that makes things easier. It takes away from the speed and multitasking ability required by the pros. Imagine if you could select a shuttle with HTs and it had a "Go find an expansion and storm drop it" button. It would allow the player to focus more on his/her main army instead of harassing hence more "flexibility" but is a fairly obvious decrease in skill requirement.
One shall never split player's attention by forcing him to do absolutely mindless and unnecessary stuff. That's as fun as having your grandma staying behind you constantly tapping your shoulder asking where are here glasses.
|
On December 08 2008 03:43 InRaged wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2008 03:08 NatsuTerran wrote:
And no, you can very easily tell how legitimately difficult a game is by playing by yourself. Starcraft macro is still fairly difficult even without an opponent. Like I said, most of the starcraft macro is based on punishment. That is, most of the macro in Starcraft is a mandatory that even noobs have to do in order to play the game. That's why you can see it even when you don't have any opponent. But everything changes once we apply "easy to learn hard to master" concept. Once we change it from being advantageous instead of being punishing, you don't need it anymore to win against inferior players.
Yeah, this is an important and somewhat overlooked point.
Playing SC1 is like having an application run at constant 100% CPU usage, even if it's just an idle game situation. But it should be dynamic, you should only give 100% if you really have to.
But in SC1, when e.g. Bisu plays against a Korean amateur Zerg which he is supposed to rape like 45-5 in 50 games, he still has to play like he's playing against Jaedong, Luxury or similar top notch Zergs. This is because the game itself forces upon you a difficulty (through the inefficient UI) that's completely independent of your opponent's strength. And that is what many pro-MBSers want to be changed, because it just doesn't make a lot of sense. It's just a huge obstacle for beginners, and it's even an obstacle when a pro plays against a lesser player.
I assume it also leads to burnouts (or "ever-lasting slumps") quite fast. E.g. a lot of the old great players play ridiculously bad now, they make mistakes they would never have done earlier in their career. They have played too much, all this extremely fast typing/clicking/multitasking 10 hours a day (whether you play someone good or bad, you still need it, and that sucks) can't be good.
It also leads to huge upsets from bad players who steal a win they don't deserve just because the better player didn't play at 100%.
Apart from that it's simply unergonomic.
|
On December 09 2008 07:05 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2008 06:02 A3iL3r0n wrote:On December 08 2008 05:16 Unentschieden wrote:On December 08 2008 03:08 NatsuTerran wrote:
What does that zerg example have to do with anything? Are you required to spawn creep on every square inch of the map in SC2? And no, you can very easily tell how legitimately difficult a game is by playing by yourself. Starcraft macro is still fairly difficult even without an opponent. Yep - is that a good thing though? That is the core issue. What is "legitimate Difficulty" in a Multiplayer centric title? How much of the "difficulty" should depend on your enemys skills and how much on the game itself? I´d prefer as much "enemybased difficulty" as possible. Edit: Basically what InRaged said. Go play WC3 then since there's no macro. It's obvious you don't enjoy BW for what it is. SC2 should be a lot like BW in its core elements. If it's not, then how is it a proper sequel? Look, your argument doesn't even make sense. Both players have to contend with creating a flawless production line of macro. It's a skill. How you and your opponent match-up in this element of the game bears on the outcome. Unlike WC3, macro is a strategy in BW. How is removing almost an entire facet of the game a positive? The suggestion doesn't even have a sensible place in the discussion. Mechanics are a large part of BW. So leave my game alone, please. I'm not trying to insult you or be elitist, because again, it's all about preference, not right or wrong. If you want MBS and automine, there are other games that already have it. Go do that, and leave my game alone. I was just wandering that perhaps it has occured to someone that actually macro in SC2 will be much the same as in SCBW as of this stage of game development. Right now, Bisu needs to spend approximately 1 second to produce from 10 gateways, in SC2 it will take him almost the same amount of time (hotkey + 10x another key pressing). I know you won't have to go back to your base any more but while producing units from numerous production buildings which can take a couple of seconds your hands as to micro/whatever are tied. So basically in SC2 decision between micro/macro will have the same impact on the game since macroing will still be time consuming. The only difference is that you will be able to watch the battles while doing so which opens up some interesting decisionmaking - will I gain more by producing more units or by breaking my macro to micro the units? Just my 2 cents.
That's exactly what many percieve as a negative thing. Did you read any previous MBS/auto-mining/macro/whatever threads before?
You can't really try to solve an issue without hearing the other side's points. ;;
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
