Should the player have to come back to the base to produce reinforcements?

[DemolitionSquid]

WE don't have to discredit Browder.

THE GAME discredits Browder well enough on its own.

We're just trying to explain to you HOW it does so, since you clearly can't see it.

[ArcherofAiur]

Its too bad Dustin didnt elaborate in further paragraphs about mechanics that have you go back to the base to produce reinforcements....


I mean if he had that would mean that the game actually reinforces what Dustin is saying and the real problem is your reconciling how some parts of the game can be automatic and other can have manual labor.

[DemolitionSquid]

Its too bad Dustin didnt elaborate in the next two paragraphs about mechanics that have you go back to the base to produce reinforcements...

He didn't elaborate because THERE ARE NONE. You do NOT have to go back to the base to produce reinforcements. He was WRONG.

I mean if he had that would mean that the game actually reinforces what Dustin is saying and the real problem is your reconciling how some parts of the game can be automatic and other can have manual labor.

1. Improve your English skills. That made very little sense.
2. Assuming my interpretation of what you just said is accurate, and it may not be, here's my answer:

The game does NOT reinforce what Dustin said. Ergo, what Dustin said IS NOT RELEVANT.

Some parts of the game can be automated. Some can have manual labor. No one has a problem with that. All we have ever said is that some of the things that are manual labor should be automated, like PC. You have given non one any reason to believe otherwise, and neither has Dustin.

[unentschieden]

The German -> English translation quality was NEVER the issue.And the actual confirmation you´d need would be the original English-> German one. The issue is that your entire argument relies on one or two words from a vocal statement wich has gone through 2 translations at that point.
As I have said before it´s much more important that it was an Interview with a completely different context. You´d have a point if you had other sources for your claims, alternative official statements or interviews that adress your issue directly.
On top of that any of this would have to be relativly recent since Blizzard sometimes change their mind.

[SpaceDominator]

Even though I'm completely confused about the idea of this thread.. I'm just wondering if the real question was this. To those of you that played C&C: Red Alert and those series of games, if I remember correctly you did not have to return to your base to produce units and begin to research buildings. You just had the bar on the side where you would just click and it would automatically produce the units for you back at your base. Perhaps here lies in this thought. Would you rather force the player to select each building or each group of buildings to produce units? Or would you rather just have some sort of option ala C&C on the side that would do this for you automatically without having to physically select the buildings. You can see what I mean at: http://www.mobygames.com/game/window...meShotId,6468/

This to me would seem to be the only real issue related to this question. Personally I think people enjoy the way that SC deals with this issue and they don't really want to see it messed around with too much.

Just a thought. Perhaps it just adds to the confusion overall.

[ArcherofAiur]

[and unentschieden keeps trying to discredit]

[DemolitionSquid]

[and unentschieden keeps trying to discredit]

Ad hominem is not usually a valid debate technique.

But in this case, I think we can make an exception.

[Nicol Bolas]

Ad hominem is not usually a valid debate technique.

He's not using ad hominem. Ad hominem is when you attack the source for something that has nothing to do with the material under discussion. If you attack the source for something that would clearly materially affect the validity of the source, then it's perfectly valid.

For example, if a source is a translation, then it is reasonable to at least ask the question as to whether it was a good translation before taking the source as fact. It would be Ad hominem to say that because the source is German, and Germans are bad people, then it is unreliable.

[DemolitionSquid]

He's not using ad hominem. Ad hominem is when you attack the source for something that has nothing to do with the material under discussion. If you attack the source for something that would clearly materially affect the validity of the source, then it's perfectly valid.

For example, if a source is a translation, then it is reasonable to at least ask the question as to whether it was a good translation before taking the source as fact. It would be Ad hominem to say that because the source is German, and Germans are bad people, then it is unreliable.

I know that.

Archer didn't though. Thanks for ruining my joke.

[ArcherofAiur]

Back on topic (since this is becoming a flamefest) I think that Starcraft is a game where players should have to come back to the base to produce reinforcements. This is a great part of classic RTS gameplay that has been lost in allot of recent titles where the base is too automated. It is fine to have a baseline level of resource and unit production be automated but there should also be an active portion. Players should be able to actively mine and actively increase unit produciton. Players should be able to do this by investing attention in the form of the back to base camera shift.