Is it wrong to want an simple game ?

[AegisKHAOS]

I didnt take issue with that part of his post. I had itially quoted the whole thing but then I removed that part. If Nicole truely believes there is more to fun than direct confrontation then were on the same page.

I... I... how do you not understand what's even being said? Look, whether you think that the current macro mechanics is fun or not, that's your opinion. However, what part of the macro mechanics 'is more a means to an end' does Squid's point not register to you? He obviously wasn't implying that direct confrontation was the only part of the game you get fun out of, nor was he implying that macro mechanics can't be fun. Must you take every word literally? Must you have to wait for someone to actually add words in order to fully understand what is otherwise supposed to be a simple statement?

[Santrega]

I... I... how do you not understand what's even being said? Look, whether you think that the current macro mechanics is fun or not, that's your opinion. However, what part of the macro mechanics 'is more a means to an end' does Squid's point not register to you? He obviously wasn't implying that direct confrontation was the only part of the game you get fun out of, nor was he implying that macro mechanics can't be fun. Must you take every word literally? Must you have to wait for someone to actually add words in order to fully understand what is otherwise supposed to be a simple statement?

Take every word literally? What in the world are you talking about? If its left to be interpreted in more than one way, it should be clarified, plain and simple.

A forum is not the best place to leave things for interpretation. A forum is for discussion. In order to discuss view points you have to actually understand what the other person is saying.

[AegisKHAOS]

Which would be true, except for the fact that just about everyone else knew precisely what he was implying. There's a fine line between making it clear and concise, and babysitting.

[Santrega]

Which would be true, except for the fact that just about everyone else knew precisely what he was implying. There's a fine line between making it clear and concise, and babysitting.

He directly said that the act of getting to (carrying out the function) a mass army is not fun. How you can interpret that as anything except "its not fun" is beyond me. I didnt say anything, because frankly I didn't care enough. I think its stupid to jump in here and say you shouldnt take what someone writes on a forum to mean what it actually says. I can't read peoples minds when they are sitting in front of me, I sure as hell can't read someones mind in a different city, state, country...

[AegisKHAOS]

You don't, however, need to read minds to see where his post was going, either. Clearly, he was emphasizing his hate on the economics as opposed to saying 'units and killing things are the only thing fun'. At the very least, after the number of times those two have been butting heads, you'd think you'd recognize a pattern, too. Again, many people got it. The one or two... I dunno.

As far as the post goes, simple is not a bad thing, either. But what we're really looking for is 'easy to get into, harder to master'.

[Santrega]

You don't, however, need to read minds to see where his post was going, either. Clearly, he was emphasizing his hate on the economics as opposed to saying 'units and killing things are the only thing fun'. At the very least, after the number of times those two have been butting heads, you'd think you'd recognize a pattern, too. Again, many people got it. The one or two... I dunno.

As far as the post goes, simple is not a bad thing, either. But what we're really looking for is 'easy to get into, harder to master'.

DS just likes to fight, that basically is his E-personality. He makes no attempt to be nice about what he says, and often is misunderstood because of his unclear representations of his view. However, archer and him do unnecessarily bicker about things.

The problem that I had with what you said would be the "stop taking things literal" comment. I'm not going to assume anyone on here means anything other than what they write. I simply do not know anyone on this forum enough to assume what they mean...

So, I'd hope that rather than someone follow your "don't take things literally" advice, I'd rather other people take "Try to make your point clear" as advice. If you have to assume what someone means on a forum, the poster did not actually do his job.

[ArcherofAiur]

Well this discussion has taken a productive turn...

[Nicol Bolas]

If Nicole truely believes there is more to fun than direct confrontation then were on the same page.

There's a reason I don't like to talk about what constitutes "fun" gameplay; it's just not useful. It's too subjective a concept. I prefer to talk about functional gameplay. Gameplay that objectively works via some set of criteria, such that if you happen to enjoy that kind of gameplay, you will enjoy one that is considered functional.

Some people like to run races. Some people like to swordfight. Thus far, SC2 macro isn't appealing to people who like to run races. That is, SC2 macro is non-functional gameplay. So it should either be ditched (reduced to the minimum level necessary for other aspects of the game to work) or it should be improved.

[Operatoring]

There's a reason I don't like to talk about what constitutes "fun" gameplay; it's just not useful. It's too subjective a concept. I prefer to talk about functional gameplay. Gameplay that objectively works via some set of criteria, such that if you happen to enjoy that kind of gameplay, you will enjoy one that is considered functional.

Some people like to run races. Some people like to swordfight. Thus far, SC2 macro isn't appealing to people who like to run races. That is, SC2 macro is non-functional gameplay. So it should either be ditched (reduced to the minimum level necessary for other aspects of the game to work) or it should be improved.

You talking about the Macro mechanics? Or the Macro itself?

The Macro mechanics are worthless as of right now. We might as well go back and have to manually send SCVs to mine. IMO this underlines a problem with SC2. The automated functions SC2 has implemented has taken most of the artificial Macro out of the game (A good step) but has failed to replace it with good Macro. This isn't true across the board of course, the Protoss Warp-In is a perfect example of how Macro should work.

The fear with all of this, and Blizzard obviously recognizes it, is that with Macro being so easy, the glass ceiling of skill is considerably lowered. An ideal SC2 game presents the player with so much to do, even with 1000 APM he/she couldn't accomplish half of it. The idea being that where they choose to allocate there time and clicks is the deciding factor. I hate using APM, I only do it to illustrate my point.

[ArcherofAiur]

Some people like to run races. Some people like to swordfight. Thus far, SC2 macro isn't appealing to people who like to run races.

I think you mean people who swordfight. If I read your analogy swordfighters were microers. And as far as non-functional I dont get where your getting that. Spawn Larva seems very functional to me.