|
On May 24 2007 14:03 EmS.Radagast wrote:
building from 20 gates by selecting 1 building at a time is like adding up 10-digit numbers in your head instead of using a goddamn calculator. Sure there are Korean Pro Gamers / savant idiots (respectively) that can do it in 0.5 seconds, but that's NOT what mathematics are really about, and the mechanical skill of your idolized Korean Pro Gamers isn't what strategy games are really about. Korean pro level mechanics : savant idiot math. See the connection now?
Not everyone playing SC can macro properly (aka they can't add in their head) so why should we give them a calculator if they don't know how to add in the first place? Even then, it's still based on how fast they can use the calculator (aka mash their one hotkey).
Korean pros have both the ability to add in their heads and deeply understand mathematics, why should others be given a handicap?
Yes, I see the connection.
Tell me, how much APM do you need to play Chess at a high level? not much eh? Also, everyone can learn how to move pieces on a 8x8 board, even 4 year olds (Newbie UI). Yet the game has more skill levels than you could have hope for in BW. Explain how this is possible.
This is possible because chess is rigid and turn based.
Please explain to me why you would prefer to have a new game where skill depends almost completely on mechanical abilities over a game that depends more strongly on strategy.
You don't seem to understand that BW itself wasn't supposed to be about super human mechanical abilities to begin with; In '98 and '99, people competed in BW, and they weren't doing as much as 200 APM. They were looking to win through superior decision making and innovative strategy. This is also Boxer's (and probably Nal_Ra's) style. Now that the game has been more or less solved, to the degree of what's practical in the game with its current UI, the focus is almost completely shifted to mechanics, but that is a DEGENERATE state for a strategy game.
If there isn't any possibility to improve the strategical depth in RTS games, and bw really reached the ABSOLUTE HIGHEST possible level in that department of all possible RTS games, I suppose you have a case that there's nothing else left to compete over but mechanics, but this is an unproved statement, and the onus of proof is on you.
Whether you want to admit it or not, mechanics play HUGE role and will continue to until we can play with our minds. What you want to do is focus mechanics almost solely on micro instead of macro.
|
Radagast I suggest you go and find another game instead of trying to ruin ours.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
Basically the argument for it being all about strategy falls apart the instant you're allowed to control your own units.
"Real war generals cannot directly control their troops but merely give orders and overall plans!"
|
On May 24 2007 11:48 Blacklizard wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2007 10:24 Zironic wrote:On May 24 2007 10:20 Blacklizard wrote:On May 24 2007 08:44 EmS.Radagast wrote:
High latency settings really change the gameplay and for the worse. To give a few examples, 2gw zealots don't stand a chance vs a good Z on most maps without very very careful probe/zealot micro by the P, which is outright impossible on high latency. Response time is increased so HT's usually die to muta before getting a storm off with a 1 sec delay, or mutas that are stormed take one extra second to get out of the way, Muta micro and Reaver/shuttle micro in general are alot weaker with this latency, goon vs ling micro is impossible, etc. Those things are very game changing. It strengthens the relative power of mindlessly massed and attack-moved armies, which is a very bad thing in my book.
All very true. I like that part of the game a lot, and high latency without a doubt ruins that part of the game. At the same time a wait screen every 30 seconds is almost as annoying... I guess there's no way to beat it except play vs ppl with good pings. Making the game a bit less about extremly time sensitive micro and a bit more about larger scale movement could help a bit. I hear you, and you have a valid point. But it's such a delicate balance in design. I'm afraid the game could become less interesting if Macro strongly outweighs Micro, or the opposite. Perhaps they will model one race to be obviously stronger Macro-based, and another Micro-based... but that seems very limiting as well. Nah, more than likely the goal of game's design is to make SC2 as dynamic and flexible as SC. Maps will play a large part in whether early tech builds and/or early harass will be a big threat or a lost cause, but it sounds like the want early tech/harass builds and large army builds to be equally viable.
I think they'll try to make SC2 so it's balanced at 3 sec command lag and balanced with 20ms. As I've understood it (I don't follow pro play myself) the balance between races currently in SC1 is vastly different based on if you can pull off certain micros that require low ping counts.
So basicly all the races will need both micro and macro reliant strategies so they're not screwed over if they're in an envirement that favors one or the other.
On May 24 2007 15:11 Klogon wrote:
Basically the argument for it being all about strategy falls apart the instant you're allowed to control your own units.
"Real war generals cannot directly control their troops but merely give orders and overall plans!"
Strategy while used in wars doesn't have anything to do with not controling your units, Strategy is a concept. Here, let me give you the definition from wikipedia:
There have been many attempts to define strategy, and there are many schools of strategy development.
The classic definition of strategy comes from the book by Alfred D. Chandler, Jr(1962)'Strategy & Structure':
"the determination of the basic long-term goals and objective of an enterpreise and the adoption of course of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out those goals."
By way of contrast, Quinn (1980)offers the following:
"the pattern or plan that integrates an organization's major goals, policies, and action sequences into a cohesive whole. A well formulated strategy helps to marshal and allocate an organization's resources into a unique and viable posture based on its relative internal competences and shortcomings, anticipated changes in the environment and contingent moves by intelligent opponents"
To which we may add the Mintzberg view of strategy as emergent strategy:
"a set of actions, or behavior, consistent over time, "a realized pattern [that] was not expressly intended" in the original planning of strategy. When a deliberate strategy is realized, the result matches the intended course of action. An emergent strategy develops when an organization takes a series of actions that with time turn into a consistent pattern of behavior, regardless of specific intentions. "Deliberate strategies provide the organization with a sense of purposeful direction." Emergent strategy implies that an organization is learning what works in practice. Mixing the deliberate and the emergent strategies in some way will help the organization to control its course while encouraging the learning process. "Organizations ...[may] pursue ... umbrella strategies: the broad outlines are deliberate while the details are allowed to emerge within them" (Mintzberg, 1994, p. 23-25; Hax & Majluf, 1996, p. 17).
These three give us an idea of differing approaches to strategy. Alfred Chandler Jr., and then Michael Porter emphasised the planned, rational decision to position the organisation in relation to its competitors. Quinn and others who followed, notably Andrew Pettigrew focused on the process that surrounds distinct strategic decisions, while Henry Mintzberg choses to highlight the distinction between planned strategy, what is intended, realised strategy, what happens, and emergent strategy, what happens that has not been planned.
|
Strategy is a very abstract concept, I didn't mean strategy in the military sense.
A game's rules define its strategies, and part of the rules for an RTS games is that you have to interact with the game through the UI in real time, which means it becomes part of game itself, in the same way units and buildings on the map are part of the game.
The UI being more or less automated give rise to completely different strategies. For example, drops (tank/lurker/reaver/ht in particular) would be madly overpowered if the game had Dune2's interface: you couldn't move your workers away from the minerals on time and almost all of them would get owned. So maybe the metagame of BW with Dune2 interface would become "first player to rush to reaver drop and micro it wins game" until Boxer would manage to actually make five of his unit shoot down the reaver on time with amazing micro and make it a little more interesting.
I will tell you the truth, I don't know what the meta-game of sc2 will look like with a bw-compatible interface, anymore than I know how it will be with a more automated UI. I'm just saying that there are no grounds to the assumption UI automation damages the depth and complexity of the meta-game. It *might* be that way for bw specifically (we don't even know that for sure), but all bets are off in a new game such as sc2. The design of sc2 can be made so that there is even more competition and interesting meta-game with an automated UI rather than a BW-compatible UI. To see why this is possible, consider my previous example: BW with BW interface is much more interesting strategically than BW with Dune2 interface.
If you think that what I just described is simply an impossible design task, in other words that ANY RTS design they will come up with will necessarily cause the meta-game to be trivialized by UI automation, I would like to to hear why. If you say the design I just described doesn't belong with the Starcraft franchise, well, this is a matter of personal opinion.
I believe that once sc2 will be solved strategically , the competition will start shifting over to mechanical ability increasingly over time, in similar vein to bw...This is inevitable, regardless of the specific details of what the mechanical ability is being used for. Given all other things are equal, better mechanical skills -> better win %. I think the argument has shifted into how much effect it should have exactly on the win %. In BW, even a small gap in mechanical skill changes the win % considerably.
I think I finally understood the argument.. a game less dependent on mechanical ability where all players follow "optimal" strategies might even out the win % between two given players, so they will have to play more games to fairly determine the winner (we will have bo5 or bo7 instead bo3). If you think about it, that's what happened with tennis: each game goes on for hours, because o/w a lower skill player could win too easily with a streak again a much better player. Tennis is quite a popular sport so I'm not sure that's such a bad thing... and the results of individual games will be less predictable, but anyway I see the case against my argument more clearly now.
|
Korean pros have both the ability to add in their heads and deeply understand mathematics, why should others be given a handicap?
That was exactly the point I was trying to make: What the Korean pros do by the math analogy, ISN'T deep understanding of mathematics. If you tell a math professor to add two 10 digit numbers, he/she will hand you over a pocket calculator. Doing arithmetic in your head requires tons of skill or a very rare talent for it, but the need for this skill is sort of "made up". It has nothing to do with actual understanding of mathematics, just as 1a2a3a4a5a6a in less than a second has nothing to do with strategic thinking in bw.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On May 24 2007 14:03 EmS.Radagast wrote:
No, no, no! The analogy to musical instruments is flawed at a basic level because the whole essence of playing an instrument is to map your mechanical skill on the instrument into the execution of a composition that SOMEBODY ELSE WROTE FOR YOU.
There is actually a button masher version of that where instead of playing a real piano you press buttons at an arcade machine, I saw a video of that once. Anyway, back to the point...
A game of BW isn't supposed to be some kind of exercise where you're given a set of low-level instructions (like a build order, notes in music a pianist would follow) that you have to follow like a machine to your best mechanical ability from the beginning to the end of the game. If you actually think that you have a completely warped perception of what a strategy game is, and I'm done arguing with you.
The mathematics analogy was supposed to mean that while arithmetics is part of mathematics, it's pretty trivial stuff and the way to improve in math isn't to train yourself on doing arithmetics faster, it's rather to move on towards increasingly more abstract constructs and investigate them. That has real purpose. Remembering PI to the 100th digit in your head like some savant idiot doesn't. The increase of abstraction in math increases its expressive power, like a more powerful UI increases your ability to implement complex strategic and tactical operations in an RTS game.
building from 20 gates by selecting 1 building at a time is like adding up 10-digit numbers in your head instead of using a goddamn calculator. Sure there are Korean Pro Gamers / savant idiots (respectively) that can do it in 0.5 seconds, but that's NOT what mathematics are really about, and the mechanical skill of your idolized Korean Pro Gamers isn't what strategy games are really about. Korean pro level mechanics : savant idiot math. See the connection now?
Tell me, how much APM do you need to play Chess at a high level? not much eh? Also, everyone can learn how to move pieces on a 8x8 board, even 4 year olds (Newbie UI). Yet the game has more skill levels than you could have hope for in BW. Explain how this is possible.
Please explain to me why you would prefer to have a new game where skill depends almost completely on mechanical abilities over a game that depends more strongly on strategy.
You don't seem to understand that BW itself wasn't supposed to be about super human mechanical abilities to begin with; In '98 and '99, people competed in BW, and they weren't doing as much as 200 APM. They were looking to win through superior decision making and innovative strategy. This is also Boxer's (and probably Nal_Ra's) style. Now that the game has been more or less solved, to the degree of what's practical in the game with its current UI, the focus is almost completely shifted to mechanics, but that is a DEGENERATE state for a strategy game.
If there isn't any possibility to improve the strategical depth in RTS games, and bw really reached the ABSOLUTE HIGHEST possible level in that department of all possible RTS games, I suppose you have a case that there's nothing else left to compete over but mechanics, but this is an unproved statement, and the onus of proof is on you.
Let me put some gloves on... this could get very ugly.
I believe you are dead wrong about saying Starcraft is not like a musical instrument because IT IS. The start of the game is very much like playing a song assuming you are actually using the hotkeys which most of you god damn newbies who are reading this forum don't. Look here's my song it's called PvT on Longinus 1 gate goon range into expo followed by 3 gate and robo :
0p0p0pbp0p0pbg0p0p
ba0p0pby0pbp0p0p4d
0pbn0pbp4d0pbgbg0p
0pvr0p4d5d6d0p9pvo
How do you like the tune of that? There's more but I'm too pissed off to play it for you. There are a few parts i don't need to write out; the solos i play when I'm microing my dragoons and my scouting with my probe. What i typed was from my memory. I have tons of songs in my head I've composed and memorized so that my beautiful music can rape newbies who are frantically clicking on gateways and bitching about starcraft turning into a macrofest. But what if a strange interruption comes into my music? What if my opponent plays the song called TvP Longinus 2 hidden rax in the middle of the map cheese? I'm not worried, i have other songs i have played before that i can transfer into comfortably. It's not hard to play my music because the tunes and effects of the game help remind what notes are coming up next. Sometimes i get in situations where i have to play a song I've never played before... that can be difficult, but it's not impossible. Being a musician as i am (or a starcraft player who actually uses all the hotkeys) i can usually play a new and original tune, i just remember what inspired my music before: what sounded good and what didn't. I use that as my inspiration. I'm a musician after all ; )
did you know there aren't really any other games that use the keyboard like starcraft? Playing Starcraft looks very similar to the game 'beatmania' which you are probably referencing. This happens to be incredibly popular in Japan and South Korea also. Do you really find it wise to take away the feature that seems to separate Starcraft from every other RTS? You sound a bit foolish to be honest... I will admit the hotkey system for Starcraft was an accident; Blizzard never intended it. You can tell by just looking at how much Warcraft 3 sucks. But why throw it away now? I like playing this complicated strategy game that also requires fast and difficult hand motions to master. Games are supposed to be challenging right? The keyboard is an incredible tool that can be utilized to make a wonderful and difficult game. Even more intimidating is that it must be played with only the left hand while the right is constantly clicking. There are far more buttons than a simple console game controller. Why are we throwing this away?
Why do all the American game companies approach making new RTS titles like they're making the new version of Windows. Maybe it's because the American gaming industry is saturated with newbs who suck at playing their own games and need to make it easier for themselves. They obsess about making everything simpler (also known as newbie). As if making everything easier and simpler would somehow unveil all the incredible strategy behind the game. People who think like this are god damn newbs who are slowly killing esports... And every time i talk to people like this i secretly want to head butt them in the face. Don't you realize that mastering the keyboard in Starcraft took so much strategy!? What genius' the first Korean macro gods were when they found all these techniques to get more units. How awesome that it stepped the game up into an entire new level. It was just another mind game, another puzzle, another great riddle embedded in the game for the gamer to solve and then use against those who attempted to steal his crown.
I want a game that is hard to master on all levels... because i am a true competitive gamer. I want more features that allow overall more advanced players to crush the weaker inferior ones.
Why don't we make make machines that can hit the golf balls for the pro golf players!? I really think it's stupid that golf players have to master hitting the ball before they can focus on all the other elements of golf that can make one the best golfer out there. Then the golf players could just program in where they want the ball to go and voalla! There will be more strategy! Oh wait... no that's a bad idea! Because hitting the golf ball yourself is part of the fucking game! It wasn't some stupid obstacle that was making it worse.
Your chess example is stupid too... pro chess players play with a timer. did you know that? they don't get to sit on their asses for four days until they have the perfect move. In fact they even have tons of chess openings memorized that allow them to utilize special squares... hmmm that sorta reminds me of a build order! If they run out of time they lose! So in fact they do have a certain amount of APM: the number of times they move their pieces! Starcraft has many things chess doesnt (i love chess, i am not talking shit on chess. I used to play chess competitively when i was younger). Chess is a more hyper focused strategy game that, in a sense, focuses on less elements than Starcraft. In a sense Starcraft uses more features in the brain than chess does.
Does Kasprov have to go 4d5d6d7d8d9d0d while watching for idle probes and late pylons while still moving his pieces around on his 8x8 board? No... If he had to do that it would make more room for different skill types. What if Kasparov had to micro his pieces while he was trying to capture his opponents. Oh my god! He might missmicro while he was fumbling through his macro. What if sometimes Kasprov could lose to players who had different styles because of all these new features we added to chess!? He would have to master everything too to stay on top.
Don't you see it? Starcraft is the best RTS so far because all sorts of brains can utilize different aspects of the game. My brother Day[9] could always outmacro me with his fast hands, but many times i could trick him with some sort of creative or unique opening. By us both learning from each others styles we have improved massively. This means you don't have to have just one mindset to be good, you have to master everything. If you want to be good at Starcraft you have to utilize what your good at--if you want to be the best you have to master every aspect in the game. Not just the theoretical strategic concepts.
I don't think Starcraft has been solved at all... The game is merely on an incredibly high level of play. So high that it is become a sport. Players are constantly having to stay in good condition to be good. There are some who have gotten closer to it's vexing solutions than others.
I'm afraid your the one that never understood Starcraft. Hopefully you will understand this new game a little bit better. T.T But don't worry, Blizzard sure didn't understand Starcraft either because they were too busy adding enuf random shit to warcraft 3 to turn it into a fucking gambling game that should be played in casinos.
Blizzard: Please keep Starcraft 2 similar to Starcraft... just build upon the echoing brilliance that you left behind in Starcraft adding new concepts along the way, not abandoning what already worked.
Notice the "Real Time" in RTS. It's real time because you have to think fast and act fast. Why not keep a feature that made that "Real Time" quality so awesome and look so beautiful. Keep it gosu. Keep it sexy.
|
is awesome32263 Posts
Awesome post hahahahahahhhhh <3
|
is awesome32263 Posts
On May 24 2007 18:44 MyLostTemple wrote:
Let me put some gloves on... this could get very ugly.
I believe you are dead wrong about saying Starcraft is not like a musical instrument because IT IS. The start of the game is very much like playing a song assuming you are actually using the hotkeys which most of you god damn newbies who are reading this forum don't. Look here's my song it's called PvT on Longinus 1 gate goon range into expo followed by 3 gate and robo :
0p0p0pbp0p0pbg0p0p
ba0p0pby0pbp0p0p4d
0pbn0pbp4d0pbgbg0p
0pvr0p4d5d6d0p9pvo
How do you like the tune of that?
Art.
|
Tasteless post was total fucking art, it should be like...added to the featured threads just because.
|
In other words..
Tasteless just raped every fucking whining bitch who ever stepped into any SC2 related thread.
Heck, he did all the work for the Anti-SC2 Whining team.
Right fucking on. Go get them Tasteless!
|
MURICA15980 Posts
Hahaha seriously, that was... quite a tune you played on that keyboard there ;D
|
tasteless's post was one of the best posts on tl.net i have read, tasteless fucking nailed it on the head, <3 
|
On May 24 2007 19:31 Months wrote:tasteless's post was one of the best posts on tl.net i have read, tasteless fucking nailed it on the head, <3
QFT, epic post.
Storm Observer Fighting!~
|
can i nibble on your balls a little tasteless?
|
Epic, fucking epic.
I always have a soft spot for comparing anything to music.
|
It doesn't seem like such a bad idea too me. SC is the best game ever, but I think it could be improved (dont' hate on me) if the APM or pure raw speed aspect could be slightly minimized therefore making strategy and micro more importand rather than quick mouse speed for macro and quick fingers for hotkeys.
-basically this way top foreigners wouldn't get pwned by lower korean pros purely because the "bad" pros got their mechanics down with a worse grasp of the game.
|
IF THEY ARE WORSE AT THE GAME, SHOULD THEY NOT LOSE???
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I think that was an awesome, awesome post..
(By tasteless)
Strong.
|
Tasteless owned this fucking tragic thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
