|
Antonak, what InRaged described definitely can be considered as yomi:
You move an "empty" Shuttle over your enemy's sieged Tanks to force him to unsiege (layer 1), he's just scanned your army a moment ago (you're containing him or something) and seen you unload your Zealots so he assumes you're not bombing him (layer 2), but you predicted that after seeing him scan you and took another Shuttle, which was out of his view, loaded Zealots up and actually bombed him. ;]
As for introducing more yomi into RTS - mindgames require both players to participate, so you'd have to make people adopt them into their playstyles (something fighting games players have apparently already done on competitive level), otherwise you'll be just fantasising in your mind instead of playing mindgames. ^^
On December 02 2008 14:54 InRaged wrote:Now don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing directly with you, I'm just trying to push the point I feel not widespread enough in these discussions. Reading these discussions feels like no more than couple people share the opinion, that there's bad mechanics - mechanics that doesn't have any decision making, that doesn't depend on situation and that consist of the always same thoughtless routine - and there's good game mechanics, like blink, or like warpgates, or like nydus warm, or like anything else that has good potential for this Yomi thing
There are ways of turning those mindless routines/mechanics into something thoughful, though.
For more refer to FA's/my mineral mechanic.
/selfpromotion 
On December 03 2008 02:14 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2008 01:01 maybenexttime wrote:
We're talking about being goood/skilled at a game, and not being a champion material, though. So some of these point are irrelevant.
I´m really curious where you draw the line. Whyt would be irrelevant to a "non-champion but still competative?"
I'm talking about being really skilled at the game but not necessarily a champion material, like Sea[Shield], who doesn't seem to get past Ro16, or any other ProLeague-oriented player.
• Familiarity with tournaments:
Largely deemphisized. There are less stages in ProLeague (like qualifiers, group stages, Bo3's, Bo5's), the players play as a team, which reduces the strain.
• Love of the game:
There are relatively burned out players who still maintain good level of play.
• Mental Toughness (unless in ACE match):
Qualifying for OSL and then winning it requires much, much more mental toughness than winning a single ProLeague game (even ACE)
• Mental attitude toward winning, losing, improving:
Keeping that type of attitude in individual leagues is a lot harder than in PL
• Adaptability:
Takes more skill in a series of games than within a single game.
• Yomi:
Individual leagues feature mindgames between game (educated guesses regarding BOs, etc.).
What I meant by "being goood/skilled at a game, and not being a champion material" was basically the level of play in your average eSTRO vs. WeMade (no offence) match.
So these traits may be required for one to become a "Gold Medallist" but they're largely marginalized in most progaming matches as not all of them are OSL final level.
What I meant was that we're discussing the level of play where players are clearly excelling at the game but are not fighting over a title.
Show nested quote +On December 03 2008 01:01 maybenexttime wrote:
I've also pointed out my objections to Sirlin's train of thought regarding mechanic etc. - most of his misconceptions are due to his ignorance/lack of understanding of SC on competitive level.
That doesn´t matter for the point we are arguing. It´s not like we are talking about SC:BW patches, but about the aproach to competative gameplay in a new RTS. You are letting your SC:BW experience narrow your vision. We can´t and shouldn´t compare everything to a game that was maintained for 10 years to one thats not even Beta - we´d just cripple the creative process. If there is anything Blizzard knows how to do it´s polish. They would have good reasons to change something.
I'm just saying that many of his point do not apply to SC.
As Zelc pointed out, there are two types of games as far as mechanic go. Sirlin is clearly percieving SC as #1 when it's in fact #2 type. All his misconceptions stem from that.
Also, SC is not narrowing my vision. As you clearly know, I've never argued for keeping SC mechanics intact in SC2. Quite the opposite: together with FA we've proposed the solution to making macro routines (as a substitute to manual-mining and SBS macro) a thoughtful process (the mineral mechanic).
|
On December 03 2008 06:10 exeprime wrote:
All this hate is ridiculous. Will a few less clicks destroy the game? Is 1dddzz so much worse than 1d2d3d4z5z? Automine *might* be a bit worse but having 3-4 idle workers isn't *such* a tragedy in BW mid / late game unless you happen to be a korean progamer or something, and I'm sure they'll have plenty of other things on their mind.
After all, lots of much more important macro aspects will still be there - putting down buildings / positioning them, getting expansions, transferring workers, researching upgrades, etc
MBS will just mean more free hotkeys for troops, and automine... I doubt it will be anywhere near as relevant as everyone thinks it will be.
It's not about "a few less clicks." Can all you pro UI changes people stop perpetuating that nonsense?
It's about:
- rhythm
- micro-to-macro multi-tasking
- micro-to-macro decision making
- time/attention management
- UI changes removing the negative feedback in terms of expanding
If you don't know what those mean, then that's because you're uneducated on the issue, and thus should not post in any thread regarding it unless you stop being ignorant and educate yourself.
|
where else should i look at if my base is fully functional without me?
no i dont want to baby sit my troops, i want to outmacro my opponent like oov always did, fuck micro
gg no re for me?
|
On December 03 2008 06:10 maybenexttime wrote:
As for introducing more yomi into RTS - mindgames require both players to participate, so you'd have to make people adopt them into their playstyles (something fighting games players have apparently already done on competitive level), otherwise you'll be just fantasising in your mind instead of playing mindgames. ^^
People will and do incorporate mindgames into their play when it makes them win. If not having a idea about what your enemy thinks (or making him believe you think something you don´t) doesn´t give an advantage there wont be mindgames - and imho a very shallow game.
On December 03 2008 06:10 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2008 01:01 maybenexttime wrote:
I've also pointed out my objections to Sirlin's train of thought regarding mechanic etc. - most of his misconceptions are due to his ignorance/lack of understanding of SC on competitive level.
That doesn´t matter for the point we are arguing. It´s not like we are talking about SC:BW patches, but about the aproach to competative gameplay in a new RTS. You are letting your SC:BW experience narrow your vision. We can´t and shouldn´t compare everything to a game that was maintained for 10 years to one thats not even Beta - we´d just cripple the creative process. If there is anything Blizzard knows how to do it´s polish. They would have good reasons to change something. I'm just saying that many of his point do not apply to SC. As Zelc pointed out, there are two types of games as far as mechanic go. Sirlin is clearly percieving SC as #1 when it's in fact #2 type. All his misconceptions stem from that. Also, SC is not narrowing my vision. As you clearly know, I've never argued for keeping SC mechanics intact in SC2. Quite the opposite: together with FA we've proposed the solution to making macro routines (as a substitute to manual-mining and SBS macro) a thoughtful process (the mineral mechanic).
Sirlin is/was actually disappointed that SC2 appears to be "more #2 than #1" and his arguments (which I agree with) support #1. The quote in the OP was a direct answer to a SC2 MBS discussion (before the "automine is the devil" days) if I remember correctly.
Sirlin always praised SC:BW for balance, never the UI - even though back at release it was a HUGE noobification compared to WC2 (Queues, A-Attack...)
I already discussed your suggestion if you remember so please refer to the original thread for my comment on that.
|
My dream SC2 would be sooo much like the original =) If you look at D3 it looks just like what you'd have expected it would be! Does Blizzard ever fail to make an amazing game? SC2 is their best chance.
|
Unentschieden, you can't be disappointed that SC2 is #2 and support #1 - that's asking for Blizzard to implement a cap as to how good you can get with mechanics - not gonna happen.
And if there's no cap to mechanics like there is in SF, then they're not a hurdle but an equally important skill.
|
Ok, I read this and I don’t see how it’s not yomi, so elaborate, please ;P
Yomi is just a fancy word for a mind games, right? Playing on each other expectations is a huge part of the micro and all examples from previous post have it, they’re just not so evident if one doesn’t have experience dealing with them. Muta harass would probably be the best example out there - terran tries to predict were muta goes next, and zerg plays on that and tries to put terran out of position. And same goes for good deal of micro battles (by micro battle I don’t mean solely clicking) in starcraft. Layer 2 and occasionally layer 3 of this yomi thing is the norm for starcraft micro battles. Of course these mind games are not as intense and deep and doesn’t last whole game without a single break as in good fighting games but they’re still here and have a lot to say on the game’s outcome.
On December 03 2008 05:49 .risingdragoon wrote:
Street Fighter, for all its layers of counters, is not gonna fill stadiums. I'll leave you to wonder why this is.
erm?? If even kart rider fills stadiums... lol
On December 02 2008 12:55 Bill307 wrote:Anyway, StarCraft has a very low rate of mindgame opportunities per minute. Ask yourself: how frequently do you "fool" or try to fool your opponent in an average game of StarCraft? Now, mindgames are pretty fundamental to fighters (the good ones, at least  ), so it's no surprise that they occur far, far more frequently than in StarCraft. It's unavoidable, really. Another example of a game with more mindgames is Team Micro Melee. E.g. fooling your opponent by attacking an unexpected location; or fooling your opponent by burrowing hydras without suiciding; or fooling that guy by running away as if you expect him to suicide, but instead stopping just outside of his burrow vision; and so on. But again, this is possible at least in part because it's a different kind of game. Although I would find StarCraft more fun if it had more mindgames, I honestly don't know how to give it more. E.g. in TMM, those mindgames arise mostly out of the "Micro" part of the game, not the "Melee" part. So even though it's an area where StarCraft (and perhaps RTS in general) lacks, I really can't complain about it. =/ (Instead I now play fighters and TMM rather than 1v1 games. )
But why mindgames are fundamental in one games and are very rare in others? Why there's so much more yomi in fightings? What is the first and foremost prerequisite that makes mindgames possible in the first place?
It's players interaction with each other what makes it possible. In fighters every half of second of the game player changes game face and forces his opponent to adapt immediately, right? (:
Yes, there's no way to add more of the mindgames into starcraft, when such a big part of the game populated by actions, that are opposite to the core idea behind mindgames - interaction between players. Sounds ridiculous if you think about it, but yeah, RTS genre already gimped compared to the fightings in this aspect, since battlefield changes, that force you to adapt and give a counter are much less frequent. Now, why limit it even more with actions that doesn't involve interaction with opponent at all and yet take such sizable amount of time to complete (sending workers to minerals + clicking at individual buildings to produce units and e.t.c).
Why I like warp-in is exactly because of this - with warp-in when you create reinforcement you are going through same thought process as when you move your army: "where warp my force? In the far expand and try to flank opponent from there, or at the main and try to take center? Or maybe half here and half there and use first part as decoy? o.O". First and most important steps on the path of making starcraft more Yomi should be exactly like warp-in.
|
On December 03 2008 06:19 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2008 06:10 exeprime wrote:
All this hate is ridiculous. Will a few less clicks destroy the game? Is 1dddzz so much worse than 1d2d3d4z5z? Automine *might* be a bit worse but having 3-4 idle workers isn't *such* a tragedy in BW mid / late game unless you happen to be a korean progamer or something, and I'm sure they'll have plenty of other things on their mind.
After all, lots of much more important macro aspects will still be there - putting down buildings / positioning them, getting expansions, transferring workers, researching upgrades, etc
MBS will just mean more free hotkeys for troops, and automine... I doubt it will be anywhere near as relevant as everyone thinks it will be. It's not about "a few less clicks." Can all you pro UI changes people stop perpetuating that nonsense? It's about: - rhythm - micro-to-macro multi-tasking - micro-to-macro decision making - time/attention management - UI changes removing the negative feedback in terms of expanding If you don't know what those mean, then that's because you're uneducated on the issue, and thus should not post in any thread regarding it unless you stop being ignorant and educate yourself.
I know quite a few fields (like economics or politics) with their hordes of pseudo-experts throwing similar buzzwords as arguments, and they too claim that if you understand nothing to their purposefully obfuscating verbiage then you have no right to argue against them. I've never found that kind of argument very convincing.
|
On December 01 2008 15:26 nataziel wrote:
Reducing the need for mechanics will increase the level of decision making and strategy, but I think the combination of the two is what really makes SC special.
this obviously
|
Braavos36389 Posts
|
On December 03 2008 09:57 onepost wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2008 06:19 maybenexttime wrote:On December 03 2008 06:10 exeprime wrote:
All this hate is ridiculous. Will a few less clicks destroy the game? Is 1dddzz so much worse than 1d2d3d4z5z? Automine *might* be a bit worse but having 3-4 idle workers isn't *such* a tragedy in BW mid / late game unless you happen to be a korean progamer or something, and I'm sure they'll have plenty of other things on their mind.
After all, lots of much more important macro aspects will still be there - putting down buildings / positioning them, getting expansions, transferring workers, researching upgrades, etc
MBS will just mean more free hotkeys for troops, and automine... I doubt it will be anywhere near as relevant as everyone thinks it will be. It's not about "a few less clicks." Can all you pro UI changes people stop perpetuating that nonsense? It's about: - rhythm - micro-to-macro multi-tasking - micro-to-macro decision making - time/attention management - UI changes removing the negative feedback in terms of expanding If you don't know what those mean, then that's because you're uneducated on the issue, and thus should not post in any thread regarding it unless you stop being ignorant and educate yourself. I know quite a few fields (like economics or politics) with their hordes of pseudo-experts throwing similar buzzwords as arguments, and they too claim that if you understand nothing to their purposefully obfuscating verbiage then you have no right to argue against them. I've never found that kind of argument very convincing.
Well, that's not strictly true, since what maybenexttime says is not inaccurate in relation to Star - it's just that all of this stuff is a secondary meta-layer built-up over the initial stage of 'fighting the UI', which over the period of 10 years has come to be considered skill. What Sirlin wrote about, and what 99% of people apparently don't understand, is the initial design layer that the game is founded on. He is suggesting a revision of the design paradigm (god i hate using that word).
|
I can understand the automining, but wtf is up with the gas mechanic bullshit.
|
On December 03 2008 11:33 Megrim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2008 09:57 onepost wrote:On December 03 2008 06:19 maybenexttime wrote:On December 03 2008 06:10 exeprime wrote:
All this hate is ridiculous. Will a few less clicks destroy the game? Is 1dddzz so much worse than 1d2d3d4z5z? Automine *might* be a bit worse but having 3-4 idle workers isn't *such* a tragedy in BW mid / late game unless you happen to be a korean progamer or something, and I'm sure they'll have plenty of other things on their mind.
After all, lots of much more important macro aspects will still be there - putting down buildings / positioning them, getting expansions, transferring workers, researching upgrades, etc
MBS will just mean more free hotkeys for troops, and automine... I doubt it will be anywhere near as relevant as everyone thinks it will be. It's not about "a few less clicks." Can all you pro UI changes people stop perpetuating that nonsense? It's about: - rhythm - micro-to-macro multi-tasking - micro-to-macro decision making - time/attention management - UI changes removing the negative feedback in terms of expanding If you don't know what those mean, then that's because you're uneducated on the issue, and thus should not post in any thread regarding it unless you stop being ignorant and educate yourself. I know quite a few fields (like economics or politics) with their hordes of pseudo-experts throwing similar buzzwords as arguments, and they too claim that if you understand nothing to their purposefully obfuscating verbiage then you have no right to argue against them. I've never found that kind of argument very convincing. Well, that's not strictly true, since what maybenexttime says is not inaccurate in relation to Star - it's just that all of this stuff is a secondary meta-layer built-up over the initial stage of 'fighting the UI', which over the period of 10 years has come to be considered skill. What Sirlin wrote about, and what 99% of people apparently don't understand, is the initial design layer that the game is founded on. He is suggesting a revision of the design paradigm (god i hate using that word).
Funny. The same people who claim that the game was meant to become a crazy macro+micro exercice from the start also claim that Blizzard never anticipated that it would become such as it is today, thus the result of "luck", which they are undoing with SC2.
To be fair, there is some truth in it, despite the fragrant flagrant contradiction: nobody anticipated what would become of SC:BW a decade later. I say trust Blizzard and give SC2 a chance, because it will also take that long for its own full potential to be unleashed.
|
It's 'flagrant contradiction' sweetheart. A fragrance is something that smells nice.
|
On December 03 2008 12:51 Megrim wrote:
It's 'flagrant contradiction' sweetheart. A fragrance is something that smells nice.
Ooops. My bad. 
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On December 03 2008 05:49 .risingdragoon wrote:
Street Fighter, for all its layers of counters, is not gonna fill stadiums. I'll leave you to wonder why this is. To me, the level of multitasking in itself is worthy of spectator appreciation. Reduce it, and you cheapen every aspect of the game from playing to winning.
You are an idiot.
First of all, Street Fighter does fill stadiums. (there's no game footage in this one, but look at 4:30 onwards to see a view of the arena)
Furthermore, the crowd makes a lot more noise during Street Fighter compared to StarCraft. (this video is of last year's finals) That should tell you something about the game's suitability for spectators.
And these games gather crowds not just in Japan, but also in the US and in Europe. Again you can hear the large crowd going nuts. These may not be stadiums, but there were easily over 200 people at each event, and events like these happen every few months in North America, where people travel from all across the continent to attend them.
Lastly, lol @ multitasking alone being worthy of spectator appreciation. How many of the tens of thousands of casual StarCraft spectators in Korea do you think appreciate multitasking?
|
On December 03 2008 06:37 Ki_Do wrote:
where else should i look at if my base is fully functional without me?
no i dont want to baby sit my troops, i want to outmacro my opponent like oov always did, fuck micro
gg no re for me?
Who says you can't do that? Outmacroing will just mean that you're doing it by having perfect expo timing, perfect worker saturation, perfect build orders, and most importantly: by denying or killing your opponent expansions, and by defending your own.
Rather than just being the fastest at clicking through gateways, an extremely repetitive and thus boring task (for many players).
The definition of "good macro" will change. In SC1, it's essentially equivalent to "good multitasking". In SC2, it will have more strategic qualities. Remember all the new ways to get across the map to enemy expansions... it'll probably be harder to defend expansions so you automatically need to spend more APM/time to defend/secure those expos.
And if you don't like micro, you shouldn't win any fights actually. It's sad when someone who doesn't give a shit for micro wins at SC... micro should be the number one priority in battles. If a battle happens, your focus should be on micro (and macro just in those split seconds where you don't have to micro). If a battle happens and you let your units die in order to build 8 new ones instead (which pop out very fast too), then the game is seriously imbalanced in favor of macro, and that needs to change. It should be obvious that when a battle is happening, that micro should be done, no? That's also the reason why years ago the pimpest plays were really cool - progamers really used a lot of micro tricks in order to win battles and save their units (Boxer-style m&m vs. lurk dancing, really cool lurk/ling flanks, etc... now it's mostly just "wait for big army then A-move" because macro is so much better than micro, even during fights)
|
On December 03 2008 09:57 onepost wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2008 06:19 maybenexttime wrote:On December 03 2008 06:10 exeprime wrote:
All this hate is ridiculous. Will a few less clicks destroy the game? Is 1dddzz so much worse than 1d2d3d4z5z? Automine *might* be a bit worse but having 3-4 idle workers isn't *such* a tragedy in BW mid / late game unless you happen to be a korean progamer or something, and I'm sure they'll have plenty of other things on their mind.
After all, lots of much more important macro aspects will still be there - putting down buildings / positioning them, getting expansions, transferring workers, researching upgrades, etc
MBS will just mean more free hotkeys for troops, and automine... I doubt it will be anywhere near as relevant as everyone thinks it will be. It's not about "a few less clicks." Can all you pro UI changes people stop perpetuating that nonsense? It's about: - rhythm - micro-to-macro multi-tasking - micro-to-macro decision making - time/attention management - UI changes removing the negative feedback in terms of expanding If you don't know what those mean, then that's because you're uneducated on the issue, and thus should not post in any thread regarding it unless you stop being ignorant and educate yourself. I know quite a few fields (like economics or politics) with their hordes of pseudo-experts throwing similar buzzwords as arguments, and they too claim that if you understand nothing to their purposefully obfuscating verbiage then you have no right to argue against them. I've never found that kind of argument very convincing.
They are not buzzwords. If you don't know what they mean (which you apparently do not) then refer to numerous MBS/auto-mining threads instead of deliberately derailing the thread.
Could you refrain from downplaying my post out of sheer ignorance?
I'm not going to explain them every damn time some ignorant like you accuses me of using buzzwords. I couldn't care less what someone as lazy as you thinks, tbh.
|
On December 03 2008 08:27 maybenexttime wrote:
Unentschieden, you can't be disappointed that SC2 is #2 and support #1 - that's asking for Blizzard to implement a cap as to how good you can get with mechanics - not gonna happen.
And if there's no cap to mechanics like there is in SF, then they're not a hurdle but an equally important skill.
You can´t be serious. Do you really think thats my point? Also, please read the OP again to see where "we" (the ones agreeing with the OP) are trying to set "limits".
It´s NOT technical skill. It´s useless busywork that is effectivly equal among players and just serve to keep beginners out of the game.
The Blizzard from 10 years ago did just this: The 12 unit cap was a answer to a imba strat: rushing. Instead of making rushing fair they wanted to limit the players ability to do said strategy. They quickly realised that they had to balance it anyway, can you tell why?
|
On December 03 2008 15:44 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2008 08:27 maybenexttime wrote:
Unentschieden, you can't be disappointed that SC2 is #2 and support #1 - that's asking for Blizzard to implement a cap as to how good you can get with mechanics - not gonna happen.
And if there's no cap to mechanics like there is in SF, then they're not a hurdle but an equally important skill. You can´t be serious. Do you really think thats my point? Also, please read the OP again to see where "we" (the ones agreeing with the OP) are trying to set "limits". It´s NOT technical skill. It´s useless busywork that is effectivly equal among players and just serve to keep beginners out of the game. The Blizzard from 10 years ago did just this: The 12 unit cap was a answer to a imba strat: rushing. Instead of making rushing fair they wanted to limit the players ability to do said strategy. They quickly realised that they had to balance it anyway, can you tell why?
I think you're reading my post wrong.
"Sirlin is/was actually disappointed that SC2 appears to be "more #2 than #1" and his arguments (which I agree with) support #1." - Unentschieden
"Unentschieden, you can't be disappointed that SC2 is #2" - MaybeNextTime
That's a general 'you' - I didn't mean you specifically.
"It´s NOT technical skill. It´s useless busywork that is effectivly equal among players and just serve to keep beginners out of the game." - Unentschieden
First of all, you can continously get more efficient at these "repetitive, mindless busywork." So it is an acquired skill. The problem with SC's manual-mining/SBS macro is that - despite decision making associated with it as far as choosing when to pay your attention to them (i.e. cyclical, mundane macro tasks) - they are devoid of decision making within themselves (the mechanical routines like going through the buildings and manually telling workers to mine, that is).
As for their being "useless" - they are not. They play a significant role in SC1's gameplay (emphisize micro-to-macro multi-tasking/decision making, time/attention management, rhythm, and largely prevent the snowball effect from occuring).
Can you alter those mundane, mindless tasks into something that requires thought but retains SC1's frentic intensity/physical demands? For god's sake, YES!
Then why not stop arguing about taking either of the extreme paths (keeping the old mechanics vs. removing them, justifying that they're mindless and mundane) and agree on a compromise (like the mineral mechanic)?
"Sirlin is/was actually disappointed that SC2 appears to be "more #2 than #1" and his arguments (which I agree with) support #1." - Unentschieden
Second of all, what I meant by "asking for Blizzard to implement a cap as to how good you can get with mechanics":
I did not mean that getting rid of mundane macro-related tasks is "capping mechanics." I meant that in order to make SC2 a #1 type of game you'd have to put a cap as to how good one can get at mechanics (micro/macro/(multi-tasking)), simply because #1 type implies that one can get perfect mechanic through practice, which is not possible in #2 type.
Sirlin's disappoitment with SC2's being #2 is identical to saying you want Blizzard to cap how good one can get at micro/macro.
And thridly, I don't know what you meant by this:
"The Blizzard from 10 years ago did just this: The 12 unit cap was a answer to a imba strat: rushing. Instead of making rushing fair they wanted to limit the players ability to do said strategy. They quickly realised that they had to balance it anyway, can you tell why?" - Unentschieden
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
