Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-07-12 at 10:47:55
You want to know why? Because most people who do open source, are better then those faggots that they have working for them.
Common sense. But I guess for you, that's hard to understand.
Common sense. But I guess for you, that's hard to understand.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lisk on 2005-07-12 at 13:37:17
It's -kindeh- easier balance a melee map because you follow rules that are already set and people can easily point some stuff out. like well known strategies or exploits.
In UMS you have to do it yourself, no presets.
both of course need artistic talent and stuff
ADDITION:
Opera is better
In UMS you have to do it yourself, no presets.
both of course need artistic talent and stuff
ADDITION:
QUOTE(Sir_Fela_the_Wise @ Jul 12 2005, 06:19 AM)
The fact remains that the open source community still creates better products, and it's by far cheaper (obviously).
[right][snapback]260584[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]260584[/snapback][/right]
Opera is better
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-07-12 at 13:39:52
QUOTE(Lisk @ Jul 12 2005, 12:32 PM)
It's -kindeh- easier balance a melee map because you follow rules that are already set and people can easily point some stuff out. like well known strategies or exploits.
In UMS you have to do it yourself, no presets.
both of course need artistic talent and stuff
[right][snapback]260881[/snapback][/right]
In UMS you have to do it yourself, no presets.
both of course need artistic talent and stuff
[right][snapback]260881[/snapback][/right]
That's actually a really good point. I'm seriously amazed I did not notice that myself. Man I feel stupid.
For the entire 13 months of me leading (MC), I clearly remember telling everyone there almost all the time 2 things:
A - Most people are shallow (Not really on topic, just one of the things I've always said)
B - 99% of the stuff in UMS map making, you're gonna have to learn yourself
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-07-12 at 14:01:08
Alpha, if you just noticed that, have you been ignoring my posts or do you simply not know what "potential" means? :/
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-07-12 at 15:35:36
QUOTE(CheeZe @ Jul 12 2005, 01:01 PM)
Alpha, if you just noticed that, have you been ignoring my posts or do you simply not know what "potential" means? :/
[right][snapback]260920[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]260920[/snapback][/right]
To be honest, It's more along the lines of ignoring your posts. Well, not ignoring them ALL. just that point you made and maybe another point you made on your posts. I won't lie. Very dumb move on part.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-07-12 at 16:35:50
QUOTE
Lol, this is funny, I guess I'll have to explain it to you too, since you dont get the point. I was requoting you the same way, cause you talked down onto me by questioning my intelligence on a subject only because of the way I delivered it via text. You still havn't directly responded to my point. You just questioned my intelligence on it, that's all.
I never talked down your intelligence, what are you talking about? What I'm surprised at is you trying to force an argument and twisting my words around and trying to mix irrelevant arguments into this one that you've somehow created.
You still keep overlooking this:
QUOTE
... who said I was talking about more logic in melee? I was talking about the amount of time it takes to trigger those triggers, isn't due to how complicated it is, the process is just time consuming. I was responding to another comment about how triggers take forever to create, so they must be hard. I was saying they aren't.
I never compared the logic to in UMS to Melee.
I never compared the logic to in UMS to Melee.
The fact is you are trying to push the idea that triggering requires logic. I never argued that and I don't want to argue that because it's obvious triggering requires logic. The level of hardness is a matter of opinion and the whole reason I was even talking about "logic" was not even related to what you are talking about now.
You started it all with
QUOTE
So how does melee REQUIRE more logic than ums?
When I was responding to what Felagund was saying:
QUOTE
They also take more time in production, which is generally more difficult as well. However, melee has thus far been given more time and concentration in testing.
I was clearing up the fact that time in production doesn't make triggering harder. Logic does take up a chunk of time, but it is not the bulk of triggering.
Now that you've tangled this argument up and created a new one I'll respond to the rest of your post.
QUOTE
You still havn't directly responded to my point. You just questioned my intelligence on it, that's all.
What are you talking about? Are you talking about when I said:
QUOTE
Ah it "seems' like, well it seems to me like you're wrong.
After I said that and you said this:
QUOTE
Ah it "seems" like, well it seems to me like you don't have a defence.
I responded to it fully, but before that I said this:
QUOTE
Lol, this is funny, I guess I'll have to explain it too you, since you dont get the point. I was implying you were being ignorant Plus that's such a generalization and stereotype.
Which I then started to explain it to you:
QUOTE
Do you have any examples of this so called arguing? What you might think as arguing I would see as people actually talking about balance issues and ways to fix them, or debating whether it truely is an imbalance. Also, arguing about the map isn't a bad thing, at least people critique Melee maps, and really force the mapmaker to fix them
Did you completely skip that?
QUOTE
Do you have any examples of this so called arguing? What you might think as arguing I would see as people actually talking about balance issues and ways to fix them, or debating whether it truely is an imbalance. Also, arguing about the map isn't a bad thing, at least people critique Melee maps, and really force the mapmaker to fix them tongue.gif
No, but I do have a quote of you telling me:
QUOTE
They don't tell you what exactly to do, they just tell you what's unbalanced, you yourself have to come up with a solution by adjusting the terrain.
Either you're supporting arrogance or you're supporting me.
No, but I do have a quote of you telling me:
QUOTE
They don't tell you what exactly to do, they just tell you what's unbalanced, you yourself have to come up with a solution by adjusting the terrain.
Either you're supporting arrogance or you're supporting me.
Now what's funny about that is, is that all the "arguments" I've seen about balance weren't even arguments at all, they are merely one person presenting a POSSIBLE imbalance in the map, then the mapmaker or someone else asking for reasons as to WHY it is an imbalance. Which is why I previously said:
QUOTE
Do you have any examples of this so called arguing? What you might think as arguing I would see as people actually talking about balance issues and ways to fix them, or debating whether it truely is an imbalance. Also, arguing about the map isn't a bad thing, at least people critique Melee maps, and really force the mapmaker to fix them
Just because I say that I can have a different point of view on what you might call "arguing" because you can't even provide an example which I can look at, means that I must agree with you or be arrogant? Try finding an example so I can actually make an opinion about it, if not then you shouldn't be arguing this.
You said it "seems" like that, well I told you it really isn't, why can't you accept that since you aren't even sure for youself, since you even used the word "seems".
You're trying to put this in:
QUOTE
They don't tell you what exactly to do, they just tell you what's unbalanced, you yourself have to come up with a solution by adjusting the terrain.
Which really doesn't relate to this particular point BECAUSE that situation isn't when two people are arguing about anything. That example I posted was just a simple one where Person A says theres an imbalance where he then backs up with reasons. Person B the mapmaker, realizes that it's an imbalance and procedes to fix it. That can change to actually become an argument if Person B still doesn't think it's an imbalance, but what's wrong with that? They are simply just trying to balance the map and giving reasons. They aren't arguing simply for the sake of arguing with no point. As I said before, you make it seem like arguing is bad. Quoting me like that and twisting the point behind it is very rude.
Also, my quote that you said I told you, isn't even an argument, and if it did evolve into an actual argument, then it doesn't even take up that much time. If you can't even give an EXAMPLE of an argument, how are you supposed to say that arguing takes up as much time as creating the map.
QUOTE
As for the whole arguing thing, you basically proved my entire point right there. You basically agreed just with me. Cause the word Argue, and the word Debate, are basically the same exact thing. Just debate sounds more professional, although it's dictionary term can be describe as a fight or quarell. And we all know how proffesional quarells can be. So anyways, here is the definition of the word Argue:
You also make it seem like arguing is a bad thing when making maps. As I originally said:
QUOTE
Also, arguing about the map isn't a bad thing, at least people critique Melee maps, and really force the mapmaker to fix them
Lol I also realized this, your post saying mapmakers argue about the actual map is so vague I can barely even reply to that, what are they arguing about? I've been assuming they've been "arguing" about balance, which I've shown isn't really an argument between 2 people, one person "argues" there's an imbalance, and the mapmaker asks for reasons why. It's not a debate because the other guy isn't opposing the argument. And as I've said before, if the mapmaker does oppose, then it DOES turn into an argument, it still doesn't mean arguing is bad. There's a point to discussing the possible flaws in a map. Maybe it's new to you because it doesn't happen that much in a UMS map eh?
Now, I have a lot of stuff there, so if you see something wrong, point it out and I'll explain and refine my argument, because as I said before this argument spawned out of something totally different that had nothing to do with this, yet you feel the need to argue it.
Now to reply to your argument about logic, which I think has no point, and I don't know why I have to explain triggers to you when you created this argument as if you were replying to something, but in reality it's totally irrelevant, as I explained in the beginning. But ignore this rant and focus on my reply below, okay?
QUOTE
No, it's there to point out that triggers are more than just if X then Y. It's also, if X is A B and C, AND if Z is D E and F, then P M and S.
And if P is D E, and G, then Q F C L O and H.
And that's simple stuff. Some of it gets a lot more complicated than that. So don't say it's just if X then Y. Cause it seems like either your acting like there's only 1 condition and action, or if you left the amount of conditions and actions as variables.
And if P is D E, and G, then Q F C L O and H.
And that's simple stuff. Some of it gets a lot more complicated than that. So don't say it's just if X then Y. Cause it seems like either your acting like there's only 1 condition and action, or if you left the amount of conditions and actions as variables.
What's your point? That X can have multiple conditions that are affected by other triggers? Aren't those still conditions that can be reasonably met if you actually FOLLOW what you are trying to do. That's why I'm saying is the only thing that makes triggering hard is that you have to LOGICALLY follow what are you doing and keeping track of conditions and actions. If you have know idea how the X condition is met then you will be lost and it will seem hard. If you can logically follow what is happening in your map you will know when and how condition X is triggered even if X is A B and C and Z is D E and F, and then P M and S. If you break it down you can follow it simply. As I said before, it doesn't break the mold of condition to action.
Now what's the point of this? Are you trying to prove triggers require more logic than melee? Have I ever said otherwise? No. So are you just trying to argue to make it look like you are right about something, that I don't oppose? Seems to me like it is.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-07-12 at 17:11:29
Sorry for starting an arguement you never were against. I see now that you did agree with me on the logic part the whole time, I was just too blind to see it. That's all.
When people are bitching about maps, when they say X they will put in a reason why they said it. The creator would sometimes disagree. If he disagrees, you don't think he'll tell the guy WHY he disagrees? Then after he tells him why, you don't think the guy would say something back?
And I never said arguing was bad. Find me a quote of me saying that. All I DID say was that they spend about as much time working on the map, as they do arguing about it. I assumed that, because they have to listen to other people's opinion. And if they don't like their opinion, they should tell them why. So then the person could say, "well you're wrong because of X." or "You're right because of X." I've looked at the forums on melee, and I am wrong on this. I don't see many people arguing about the map at all. So that really just makes them do less work actually. So I was wrong, they don't argue as much as they work. They argue way less than they work, but I don't think they work as much as you guys make them sound like.
The point to the whole logic thing, was to show that it gets pretty hard to keep track of all those things. You have to WORK hard to remember what does what, and write down ideas and how things will work, more compared to you just thinking up of what kinda melee map Should I do? Should it be 128x128, or 96x96? (The size of work is really cut in half, cause all of the evened out non blizzard made melee maps I've seen so far, have been symmetric) Should it be 1v1 or 2v2? Hmmmmmm, should there be islands, and how many outposts should there be? With how many minerals and gas? And I can't put in too many cliffs, cause terran would have an advantage, nor can I have too many islands, cause zerg would then have a disadvantage, and blah blah blah. That's what you guys do. That's all you guys do. It's you trying to even out 3 buckets, but each one with different stuff in it. I can understand that being hard, but I can't understand on how that can be HARDER than some really really large and complicated 256x256 ums maps. Ones that take months to make. Call me crazy.
All I'm asking is this, do you think those really large 256x256 complicated ums maps are harder to make? Or do you think the 128x128 symetric melee maps are harder to make?
That's my only real question right now.
QUOTE
Which really doesn't relate to this particular point BECAUSE that situation isn't when two people are arguing about anything. That example I posted was just a simple one where Person A says theres an imbalance where he then backs up with reasons. Person B the mapmaker, realizes that it's an imbalance and procedes to fix it. That can change to actually become an argument if Person B still doesn't think it's an imbalance, but what's wrong with that? They are simply just trying to balance the map and giving reasons. They aren't arguing simply for the sake of arguing with no point. As I said before, you make it seem like arguing is bad. Quoting me like that and twisting the point behind it is very rude.
Also, my quote that you said I told you, isn't even an argument, and if it did evolve into an actual argument, then it doesn't even take up that much time. If you can't even give an EXAMPLE of an argument, how are you supposed to say that arguing takes up as much time as creating the map.
You said it "seems" like that, well I told you it really isn't, why can't you accept that since you aren't even sure for youself, since you even used the word "seems".
Also, my quote that you said I told you, isn't even an argument, and if it did evolve into an actual argument, then it doesn't even take up that much time. If you can't even give an EXAMPLE of an argument, how are you supposed to say that arguing takes up as much time as creating the map.
You said it "seems" like that, well I told you it really isn't, why can't you accept that since you aren't even sure for youself, since you even used the word "seems".
When people are bitching about maps, when they say X they will put in a reason why they said it. The creator would sometimes disagree. If he disagrees, you don't think he'll tell the guy WHY he disagrees? Then after he tells him why, you don't think the guy would say something back?
And I never said arguing was bad. Find me a quote of me saying that. All I DID say was that they spend about as much time working on the map, as they do arguing about it. I assumed that, because they have to listen to other people's opinion. And if they don't like their opinion, they should tell them why. So then the person could say, "well you're wrong because of X." or "You're right because of X." I've looked at the forums on melee, and I am wrong on this. I don't see many people arguing about the map at all. So that really just makes them do less work actually. So I was wrong, they don't argue as much as they work. They argue way less than they work, but I don't think they work as much as you guys make them sound like.
The point to the whole logic thing, was to show that it gets pretty hard to keep track of all those things. You have to WORK hard to remember what does what, and write down ideas and how things will work, more compared to you just thinking up of what kinda melee map Should I do? Should it be 128x128, or 96x96? (The size of work is really cut in half, cause all of the evened out non blizzard made melee maps I've seen so far, have been symmetric) Should it be 1v1 or 2v2? Hmmmmmm, should there be islands, and how many outposts should there be? With how many minerals and gas? And I can't put in too many cliffs, cause terran would have an advantage, nor can I have too many islands, cause zerg would then have a disadvantage, and blah blah blah. That's what you guys do. That's all you guys do. It's you trying to even out 3 buckets, but each one with different stuff in it. I can understand that being hard, but I can't understand on how that can be HARDER than some really really large and complicated 256x256 ums maps. Ones that take months to make. Call me crazy.
All I'm asking is this, do you think those really large 256x256 complicated ums maps are harder to make? Or do you think the 128x128 symetric melee maps are harder to make?
That's my only real question right now.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-07-12 at 17:19:24
QUOTE
When people are bitching about maps, when they say X they will put in a reason why they said it. The creator would sometimes disagree. If he disagrees, you don't think he'll tell the guy WHY he disagrees? Then after he tells him why, you don't think the guy would say something back?
QUOTE
Which really doesn't relate to this particular point BECAUSE that situation isn't when two people are arguing about anything. That example I posted was just a simple one where Person A says theres an imbalance where he then backs up with reasons. Person B the mapmaker, realizes that it's an imbalance and procedes to fix it. That can change to actually become an argument if Person B still doesn't think it's an imbalance, but what's wrong with that? They are simply just trying to balance the map and giving reasons. They aren't arguing simply for the sake of arguing with no point. As I said before, you make it seem like arguing is bad. Quoting me like that and twisting the point behind it is very rude.
QUOTE
And I never said arguing was bad. Find me a quote of me saying that. All I DID say was that they spend about as much time working on the map, as they do arguing about it. I assumed that, because they have to listen to other people's opinion. And if they don't like their opinion, they should tell them why. So then the person could say, "well you're wrong because of X." or "You're right because of X." I've looked at the forums on melee, and I am wrong on this. I don't see many people arguing about the map at all. So that really just makes them do less work actually. So I was wrong, they don't argue as much as they work. They argue way less than they work, but I don't think they work as much as you guys make them sound like.
The problem is you lack first hand experience at making melee maps.
QUOTE
The point to the whole logic thing, was to show that it gets pretty hard to keep track of all those things. You have to WORK hard to remember what does what, and write down ideas and how things will work, more compared to you just thinking up of what kinda melee map Should I do? Should it be 128x128, or 96x96? (The size of work is really cut in half, cause all of the evened out non blizzard made melee maps I've seen so far, have been symmetric) Should it be 1v1 or 2v2? Hmmmmmm, should there be islands, and how many outposts should there be? With how many minerals and gas? And I can't put in too many cliffs, cause terran would have an advantage, nor can I have too many islands, cause zerg would then have a disadvantage, and blah blah blah. That's what you guys do. That's all you guys do. It's you trying to even out 3 buckets, but each one with different stuff in it. I can understand that being hard, but I can't understand on how that can be HARDER than some really really large and complicated 256x256 ums maps. Ones that take months to make. Call me crazy.
Try doing everything you said Melee mapmakers have to do to make a balanced map, add in more intricate balancing details they have to keep in mind, AND create a totally original, creative, GOOD looking map. That is hard. If you don't understand why, try it for yourself.
Also an example of a great UMS map that takes as much work as you say they do with complicated triggering would better illustrate what you are talking about. I can't think of a map that lives up to that potential.
QUOTE
Sorry for starting an arguement you never were against. I see now that you did agree with me on the logic part the whole time, I was just too blind to see it. That's all.
Thats why I was a little aggravated when I was writing my replies
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Volcove99 on 2005-07-12 at 17:26:39
This is insanely confusing.. can someone sum this up quickly please?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-07-12 at 17:28:15
No, because there's no points being made in the last page of posts.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-07-12 at 17:33:09
QUOTE(devilesk @ Jul 12 2005, 04:28 PM)
No, because there's no points being made in the last page of posts.
[right][snapback]261178[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]261178[/snapback][/right]
Maybe none on your side, but ours yes.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-07-12 at 17:38:05
I was referring to our pointless posts I haven't caught up on what the others were talking about 
I haven't caught up on what the others were talking about Report, edit, etc...Posted by Felagund on 2005-07-12 at 20:14:55
QUOTE
QUOTE
Lol, this is funny, I guess I'll have to explain it to you too, since you dont get the point. I was requoting you the same way, cause you talked down onto me by questioning my intelligence on a subject only because of the way I delivered it via text. You still havn't directly responded to my point. You just questioned my intelligence on it, that's all.
I never talked down your intelligence, what are you talking about? What I'm surprised at is you trying to force an argument and twisting my words around and trying to mix irrelevant arguments into this one that you've somehow created.
You still keep overlooking this:
QUOTE
... who said I was talking about more logic in melee? I was talking about the amount of time it takes to trigger those triggers, isn't due to how complicated it is, the process is just time consuming. I was responding to another comment about how triggers take forever to create, so they must be hard. I was saying they aren't.
I never compared the logic to in UMS to Melee.
The fact is you are trying to push the idea that triggering requires logic. I never argued that and I don't want to argue that because it's obvious triggering requires logic. The level of hardness is a matter of opinion and the whole reason I was even talking about "logic" was not even related to what you are talking about now.
You started it all with
QUOTE
So how does melee REQUIRE more logic than ums?
When I was responding to what Felagund was saying:
QUOTE
They also take more time in production, which is generally more difficult as well. However, melee has thus far been given more time and concentration in testing.
I was clearing up the fact that time in production doesn't make triggering harder. Logic does take up a chunk of time, but it is not the bulk of triggering.
Now that you've tangled this argument up and created a new one I'll respond to the rest of your post.
QUOTE
You still havn't directly responded to my point. You just questioned my intelligence on it, that's all.
What are you talking about? Are you talking about when I said:
QUOTE
Ah it "seems' like, well it seems to me like you're wrong.
After I said that and you said this:
QUOTE
Ah it "seems" like, well it seems to me like you don't have a defence.
I responded to it fully, but before that I said this:
QUOTE
Lol, this is funny, I guess I'll have to explain it too you, since you dont get the point. I was implying you were being ignorant Plus that's such a generalization and stereotype.
Which I then started to explain it to you:
QUOTE
Do you have any examples of this so called arguing? What you might think as arguing I would see as people actually talking about balance issues and ways to fix them, or debating whether it truely is an imbalance. Also, arguing about the map isn't a bad thing, at least people critique Melee maps, and really force the mapmaker to fix them
Did you completely skip that?
QUOTE
Do you have any examples of this so called arguing? What you might think as arguing I would see as people actually talking about balance issues and ways to fix them, or debating whether it truely is an imbalance. Also, arguing about the map isn't a bad thing, at least people critique Melee maps, and really force the mapmaker to fix them tongue.gif
No, but I do have a quote of you telling me:
QUOTE
They don't tell you what exactly to do, they just tell you what's unbalanced, you yourself have to come up with a solution by adjusting the terrain.
Either you're supporting arrogance or you're supporting me.
Now what's funny about that is, is that all the "arguments" I've seen about balance weren't even arguments at all, they are merely one person presenting a POSSIBLE imbalance in the map, then the mapmaker or someone else asking for reasons as to WHY it is an imbalance. Which is why I previously said:
QUOTE
Do you have any examples of this so called arguing? What you might think as arguing I would see as people actually talking about balance issues and ways to fix them, or debating whether it truely is an imbalance. Also, arguing about the map isn't a bad thing, at least people critique Melee maps, and really force the mapmaker to fix them
Just because I say that I can have a different point of view on what you might call "arguing" because you can't even provide an example which I can look at, means that I must agree with you or be arrogant? Try finding an example so I can actually make an opinion about it, if not then you shouldn't be arguing this.
You said it "seems" like that, well I told you it really isn't, why can't you accept that since you aren't even sure for youself, since you even used the word "seems".
You're trying to put this in:
QUOTE
They don't tell you what exactly to do, they just tell you what's unbalanced, you yourself have to come up with a solution by adjusting the terrain.
Which really doesn't relate to this particular point BECAUSE that situation isn't when two people are arguing about anything. That example I posted was just a simple one where Person A says theres an imbalance where he then backs up with reasons. Person B the mapmaker, realizes that it's an imbalance and procedes to fix it. That can change to actually become an argument if Person B still doesn't think it's an imbalance, but what's wrong with that? They are simply just trying to balance the map and giving reasons. They aren't arguing simply for the sake of arguing with no point. As I said before, you make it seem like arguing is bad. Quoting me like that and twisting the point behind it is very rude.
Also, my quote that you said I told you, isn't even an argument, and if it did evolve into an actual argument, then it doesn't even take up that much time. If you can't even give an EXAMPLE of an argument, how are you supposed to say that arguing takes up as much time as creating the map.
QUOTE
As for the whole arguing thing, you basically proved my entire point right there. You basically agreed just with me. Cause the word Argue, and the word Debate, are basically the same exact thing. Just debate sounds more professional, although it's dictionary term can be describe as a fight or quarell. And we all know how proffesional quarells can be. So anyways, here is the definition of the word Argue:
You also make it seem like arguing is a bad thing when making maps. As I originally said:
QUOTE
Also, arguing about the map isn't a bad thing, at least people critique Melee maps, and really force the mapmaker to fix them
Lol I also realized this, your post saying mapmakers argue about the actual map is so vague I can barely even reply to that, what are they arguing about? I've been assuming they've been "arguing" about balance, which I've shown isn't really an argument between 2 people, one person "argues" there's an imbalance, and the mapmaker asks for reasons why. It's not a debate because the other guy isn't opposing the argument. And as I've said before, if the mapmaker does oppose, then it DOES turn into an argument, it still doesn't mean arguing is bad. There's a point to discussing the possible flaws in a map. Maybe it's new to you because it doesn't happen that much in a UMS map eh?
Now, I have a lot of stuff there, so if you see something wrong, point it out and I'll explain and refine my argument, because as I said before this argument spawned out of something totally different that had nothing to do with this, yet you feel the need to argue it.
Now to reply to your argument about logic, which I think has no point, and I don't know why I have to explain triggers to you when you created this argument as if you were replying to something, but in reality it's totally irrelevant, as I explained in the beginning. But ignore this rant and focus on my reply below, okay?
QUOTE
No, it's there to point out that triggers are more than just if X then Y. It's also, if X is A B and C, AND if Z is D E and F, then P M and S.
And if P is D E, and G, then Q F C L O and H.
And that's simple stuff. Some of it gets a lot more complicated than that. So don't say it's just if X then Y. Cause it seems like either your acting like there's only 1 condition and action, or if you left the amount of conditions and actions as variables.
What's your point? That X can have multiple conditions that are affected by other triggers? Aren't those still conditions that can be reasonably met if you actually FOLLOW what you are trying to do. That's why I'm saying is the only thing that makes triggering hard is that you have to LOGICALLY follow what are you doing and keeping track of conditions and actions. If you have know idea how the X condition is met then you will be lost and it will seem hard. If you can logically follow what is happening in your map you will know when and how condition X is triggered even if X is A B and C and Z is D E and F, and then P M and S. If you break it down you can follow it simply. As I said before, it doesn't break the mold of condition to action.
Now what's the point of this? Are you trying to prove triggers require more logic than melee? Have I ever said otherwise? No. So are you just trying to argue to make it look like you are right about something, that I don't oppose? Seems to me like it is.
Lol, this is funny, I guess I'll have to explain it to you too, since you dont get the point. I was requoting you the same way, cause you talked down onto me by questioning my intelligence on a subject only because of the way I delivered it via text. You still havn't directly responded to my point. You just questioned my intelligence on it, that's all.
I never talked down your intelligence, what are you talking about? What I'm surprised at is you trying to force an argument and twisting my words around and trying to mix irrelevant arguments into this one that you've somehow created.
You still keep overlooking this:
QUOTE
... who said I was talking about more logic in melee? I was talking about the amount of time it takes to trigger those triggers, isn't due to how complicated it is, the process is just time consuming. I was responding to another comment about how triggers take forever to create, so they must be hard. I was saying they aren't.
I never compared the logic to in UMS to Melee.
The fact is you are trying to push the idea that triggering requires logic. I never argued that and I don't want to argue that because it's obvious triggering requires logic. The level of hardness is a matter of opinion and the whole reason I was even talking about "logic" was not even related to what you are talking about now.
You started it all with
QUOTE
So how does melee REQUIRE more logic than ums?
When I was responding to what Felagund was saying:
QUOTE
They also take more time in production, which is generally more difficult as well. However, melee has thus far been given more time and concentration in testing.
I was clearing up the fact that time in production doesn't make triggering harder. Logic does take up a chunk of time, but it is not the bulk of triggering.
Now that you've tangled this argument up and created a new one I'll respond to the rest of your post.
QUOTE
You still havn't directly responded to my point. You just questioned my intelligence on it, that's all.
What are you talking about? Are you talking about when I said:
QUOTE
Ah it "seems' like, well it seems to me like you're wrong.
After I said that and you said this:
QUOTE
Ah it "seems" like, well it seems to me like you don't have a defence.
I responded to it fully, but before that I said this:
QUOTE
Lol, this is funny, I guess I'll have to explain it too you, since you dont get the point. I was implying you were being ignorant Plus that's such a generalization and stereotype.
Which I then started to explain it to you:
QUOTE
Do you have any examples of this so called arguing? What you might think as arguing I would see as people actually talking about balance issues and ways to fix them, or debating whether it truely is an imbalance. Also, arguing about the map isn't a bad thing, at least people critique Melee maps, and really force the mapmaker to fix them
Did you completely skip that?
QUOTE
Do you have any examples of this so called arguing? What you might think as arguing I would see as people actually talking about balance issues and ways to fix them, or debating whether it truely is an imbalance. Also, arguing about the map isn't a bad thing, at least people critique Melee maps, and really force the mapmaker to fix them tongue.gif
No, but I do have a quote of you telling me:
QUOTE
They don't tell you what exactly to do, they just tell you what's unbalanced, you yourself have to come up with a solution by adjusting the terrain.
Either you're supporting arrogance or you're supporting me.
Now what's funny about that is, is that all the "arguments" I've seen about balance weren't even arguments at all, they are merely one person presenting a POSSIBLE imbalance in the map, then the mapmaker or someone else asking for reasons as to WHY it is an imbalance. Which is why I previously said:
QUOTE
Do you have any examples of this so called arguing? What you might think as arguing I would see as people actually talking about balance issues and ways to fix them, or debating whether it truely is an imbalance. Also, arguing about the map isn't a bad thing, at least people critique Melee maps, and really force the mapmaker to fix them
Just because I say that I can have a different point of view on what you might call "arguing" because you can't even provide an example which I can look at, means that I must agree with you or be arrogant? Try finding an example so I can actually make an opinion about it, if not then you shouldn't be arguing this.
You said it "seems" like that, well I told you it really isn't, why can't you accept that since you aren't even sure for youself, since you even used the word "seems".
You're trying to put this in:
QUOTE
They don't tell you what exactly to do, they just tell you what's unbalanced, you yourself have to come up with a solution by adjusting the terrain.
Which really doesn't relate to this particular point BECAUSE that situation isn't when two people are arguing about anything. That example I posted was just a simple one where Person A says theres an imbalance where he then backs up with reasons. Person B the mapmaker, realizes that it's an imbalance and procedes to fix it. That can change to actually become an argument if Person B still doesn't think it's an imbalance, but what's wrong with that? They are simply just trying to balance the map and giving reasons. They aren't arguing simply for the sake of arguing with no point. As I said before, you make it seem like arguing is bad. Quoting me like that and twisting the point behind it is very rude.
Also, my quote that you said I told you, isn't even an argument, and if it did evolve into an actual argument, then it doesn't even take up that much time. If you can't even give an EXAMPLE of an argument, how are you supposed to say that arguing takes up as much time as creating the map.
QUOTE
As for the whole arguing thing, you basically proved my entire point right there. You basically agreed just with me. Cause the word Argue, and the word Debate, are basically the same exact thing. Just debate sounds more professional, although it's dictionary term can be describe as a fight or quarell. And we all know how proffesional quarells can be. So anyways, here is the definition of the word Argue:
You also make it seem like arguing is a bad thing when making maps. As I originally said:
QUOTE
Also, arguing about the map isn't a bad thing, at least people critique Melee maps, and really force the mapmaker to fix them
Lol I also realized this, your post saying mapmakers argue about the actual map is so vague I can barely even reply to that, what are they arguing about? I've been assuming they've been "arguing" about balance, which I've shown isn't really an argument between 2 people, one person "argues" there's an imbalance, and the mapmaker asks for reasons why. It's not a debate because the other guy isn't opposing the argument. And as I've said before, if the mapmaker does oppose, then it DOES turn into an argument, it still doesn't mean arguing is bad. There's a point to discussing the possible flaws in a map. Maybe it's new to you because it doesn't happen that much in a UMS map eh?
Now, I have a lot of stuff there, so if you see something wrong, point it out and I'll explain and refine my argument, because as I said before this argument spawned out of something totally different that had nothing to do with this, yet you feel the need to argue it.
Now to reply to your argument about logic, which I think has no point, and I don't know why I have to explain triggers to you when you created this argument as if you were replying to something, but in reality it's totally irrelevant, as I explained in the beginning. But ignore this rant and focus on my reply below, okay?
QUOTE
No, it's there to point out that triggers are more than just if X then Y. It's also, if X is A B and C, AND if Z is D E and F, then P M and S.
And if P is D E, and G, then Q F C L O and H.
And that's simple stuff. Some of it gets a lot more complicated than that. So don't say it's just if X then Y. Cause it seems like either your acting like there's only 1 condition and action, or if you left the amount of conditions and actions as variables.
What's your point? That X can have multiple conditions that are affected by other triggers? Aren't those still conditions that can be reasonably met if you actually FOLLOW what you are trying to do. That's why I'm saying is the only thing that makes triggering hard is that you have to LOGICALLY follow what are you doing and keeping track of conditions and actions. If you have know idea how the X condition is met then you will be lost and it will seem hard. If you can logically follow what is happening in your map you will know when and how condition X is triggered even if X is A B and C and Z is D E and F, and then P M and S. If you break it down you can follow it simply. As I said before, it doesn't break the mold of condition to action.
Now what's the point of this? Are you trying to prove triggers require more logic than melee? Have I ever said otherwise? No. So are you just trying to argue to make it look like you are right about something, that I don't oppose? Seems to me like it is.
That is called you have too much time on your hands, and no, I did not read any of it.
QUOTE
You want to know why? Because most people who do open source, are better then those faggots that they have working for them.
Common sense. But I guess for you, that's hard to understand.
Common sense. But I guess for you, that's hard to understand.
You either directed that at me or ihatett, and either way I take offense. Firstly, I'd like to point out that you're wrong. Big companies buy smart people. It's just that they're more confined in what they can do.
I'd also like to say that you have about no proof for your argument.
Do you think a new PC user could understand Linux?
And IE is just by far more exploited (Firefox isn't perfect!) because like 90% of computer users use it.
So, before you call either of us stupid, make sure you aren't yourself.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kame on 2005-07-12 at 20:29:29
please don't insult other members
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-07-12 at 21:41:52
It's too bad that Alpha retracted his "I was wrong" remark; however, I was in shock when he said it so I couldn't really expect it to last.
That is one of the most stupid things I have ever heard, and Alpha is one of the most stupid people I've ever heard of for actually agreeing.
Using your logic, it's easy as hell being a mathematician because "you follow rules that are already set".
The whole thing about the rules of Broodwar is that they are incredibly hard to follow. Not even paid proffesionals can consistently do it, let alone amatuers (and whenever an amatuer even comes close, like Bill or Mora, they achieve instant-fame). Also, notice how no one of any credibility thinks that UMS is harder (that doesn't really matter, but it should at least make you pause and think).
ADDITION:
Yes, it is very hard to understand, considering it is completely false. Name an IDE better than VS.NET. Name a C++ compiler better than MS's optimized one (which they released for free). Name an architecture better than .NET. Name word processor better than Word (I could go on about other companies, as well).
Plus, the computer world has for the most part left C in the dust. OOP, garbage collection, etc. are the way of the future. The only thing C's good for is embedded systems.
QUOTE
It's -kindeh- easier balance a melee map because you follow rules that are already set and people can easily point some stuff out. like well known strategies or exploits.
That is one of the most stupid things I have ever heard, and Alpha is one of the most stupid people I've ever heard of for actually agreeing.
Using your logic, it's easy as hell being a mathematician because "you follow rules that are already set".
The whole thing about the rules of Broodwar is that they are incredibly hard to follow. Not even paid proffesionals can consistently do it, let alone amatuers (and whenever an amatuer even comes close, like Bill or Mora, they achieve instant-fame). Also, notice how no one of any credibility thinks that UMS is harder (that doesn't really matter, but it should at least make you pause and think).
ADDITION:
QUOTE(Kellimus @ Jul 12 2005, 09:47 AM)
You want to know why? Because most people who do open source, are better then those faggots that they have working for them.
Common sense. But I guess for you, that's hard to understand.
[right][snapback]260738[/snapback][/right]
Common sense. But I guess for you, that's hard to understand.
[right][snapback]260738[/snapback][/right]
Yes, it is very hard to understand, considering it is completely false. Name an IDE better than VS.NET. Name a C++ compiler better than MS's optimized one (which they released for free). Name an architecture better than .NET. Name word processor better than Word (I could go on about other companies, as well).
Plus, the computer world has for the most part left C in the dust. OOP, garbage collection, etc. are the way of the future. The only thing C's good for is embedded systems.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-07-12 at 22:02:12
So.. out of .. random knowledge from bnet, ihatett.. I hear you're not good at melee? ;o
So .. if you're not good at melee, what's to stop you from making up random crap about "melee" being this hard to make? I think I am more qualified in making such a judgement between the two, since I have had more experience in both settings than most of the members on here.
I stand by what I said, ums has more potential.
So .. if you're not good at melee, what's to stop you from making up random crap about "melee" being this hard to make? I think I am more qualified in making such a judgement between the two, since I have had more experience in both settings than most of the members on here.
I stand by what I said, ums has more potential.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-07-12 at 22:09:03
CheeZe, I had that same idea, but the fact is, I don't think any triggering could have the depth that the game of SC has, especially enough to have new terrain being created for it just to play that game. NO MAP HAS BEEN MADE THAT LIVES UP TO THAT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE POTENTIAL.
Plus it's an unfair argument if you say it has more potential, it has more parts to it! Triggering for one thing.
Also, that's all hypothetical, the map is never made, the argument is also not about potential.
Plus it's an unfair argument if you say it has more potential, it has more parts to it! Triggering for one thing.
Also, that's all hypothetical, the map is never made, the argument is also not about potential.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-07-12 at 22:11:06
Exactly, it has more parts, thus more potential. Note that I never said we will reach it, simply a possibility.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-07-12 at 22:11:43
It's still not the point of the argument though, if this argument includes potential, then it should have been locked right away, because it's pointless.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-07-12 at 22:13:01
Yeah, I said that on my first post. *sighs* more proof no one ever reads my posts.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-07-12 at 22:26:22
Ihatett is my terran name, and I can't play terran. I started with them, but then quickly quit (but still play them occasionally. I have probably 10 toss games on that account). My toss names are random (literally), so if you ever see fiusahdf34, fajkr4d, or r0984yxn, then that's me. Don't join as zerg though, because I'll boot you.
That being said, I could never have played starcraft, and instead have listened to what excellent players have said. I could also have watched subbed televised starcraft matches, or observed replays.
ADDITION:
By the time UMS even gets close to where Broodwar is now, Broodwar will have gotten even more complex and refined.
That being said, I could never have played starcraft, and instead have listened to what excellent players have said. I could also have watched subbed televised starcraft matches, or observed replays.
ADDITION:
QUOTE
I stand by what I said, ums has more potential.
By the time UMS even gets close to where Broodwar is now, Broodwar will have gotten even more complex and refined.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kame on 2005-07-12 at 22:48:40
ihatett, please do not flame. Thank you
Thank youReport, edit, etc...Posted by noisuk on 2005-07-12 at 22:50:17
Melee (I think) is way more harder than U.M.S. You have to make a map that Blizzard or one-another hasn't made, and it has to be unique. You need plenty other bases (expo's) and a good ammount of minerals/vespene geysers in each of them. Also, you can't do that fancy terrain crap you would do in U.M.S.. It's got to be perfect, and isomical. If you use square terrain, your map will look ugly. You need to be pretty advanced to make it look clean. And sprites? Forget about it. They look crappy on melee.
In U.M.S it's mosty -- terrain, triggers, test, fix, finish. (Again, to me).
Thats just a reason why I think Melee is harder.
In U.M.S it's mosty -- terrain, triggers, test, fix, finish. (Again, to me).
Thats just a reason why I think Melee is harder.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-07-12 at 23:03:57
QUOTE(Kame da Sniper @ Jul 12 2005, 09:48 PM)
ihatett, please do not flame. Thank you
[right][snapback]261450[/snapback][/right]
Thank you[right][snapback]261450[/snapback][/right]
edited
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-07-12 at 23:49:07
QUOTE(ihatett @ Jul 12 2005, 09:26 PM)
Ihatett is my terran name, and I can't play terran. I started with them, but then quickly quit (but still play them occasionally. I have probably 10 toss games on that account). My toss names are random (literally), so if you ever see fiusahdf34, fajkr4d, or r0984yxn, then that's me. Don't join as zerg though, because I'll boot you.
That being said, I could never have played starcraft, and instead have listened to what excellent players have said. I could also have watched subbed televised starcraft matches, or observed replays.
That being said, I could never have played starcraft, and instead have listened to what excellent players have said. I could also have watched subbed televised starcraft matches, or observed replays.
The point being, you have not experienced true melee then. Perhaps you should actually learn it before trying to side with it.
QUOTE
By the time UMS even gets close to where Broodwar is now, Broodwar will have gotten even more complex and refined.
[right][snapback]261426[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]261426[/snapback][/right]
Nope, the complexity of broodwar is constant. Even if new attacks and strategies are found it is still a constant. The difficult for ums, however, is not a constant, there are new patches, each patch brings new effects to different players, not to mention clokr's "secret project" (which I will not reveal
) .. All of these dedicated mappers and programmers to make ums fun and extremely complex. Have you had any experience with "extended terrain"? How about advanced triggering? A calculator type map for instance? What about extend players to speed up and slow down the game or other side effects? I don't think so.