|
StarCraft2 is going to be an easy game just look:
- MBS
- Automining
- > 12 units to select
- and a bunch of other shit
Is what we usually hear from most if not all of us expecting the game which is to come sometime next year and haven't deeply studied it, yet.
This, to me, makes no sense, litearally.
Easy is just an abstract term, a relative term, and is fully dependent on it's surroundings.
Let me give you an example, do you think doing something as easy as holding your breath is really "EASY"? All it takes is you sitting on your ass, taking a deep breath, starting the clock and watching cartoon network or something else while you wait until you run out of breath, check the clock and see "Wow! I did 1 minute, perfect! I'm so damn good lol." and you are the current top player in the world.
EASY RIGHT?
Ok, now take this shit and put it on the competitive level. Everyone is starting on the same line of course so you will still think this is easy because no one has done it before (assume). You will see some guys doing 1:30 and you go "OMG I NEED TO TRAIN!" just to find out next week some guy is doing 9:00 and you tell yourself he's the Jaedong and we start worshipping him and start reading the 100 page strategy guides on air flow, diaphragm dynamics, lung expansion, pressure control, etc, that are just coming out.
NOT EASY ANYMORE RIGHT?
Pick another topic, walking, EASY RIGHT? All of us can walk 20 miles non-stop "rofl we're the best in the world", and you find out next year a guy walked around the earth 2 times without stopping for a second. NOT EASY ANYMORE RIGHT?
Another topic, standing up, "ROFL I STOOD UP IN THE SAME SPOT FOR A MONTH IM #1 IN THE WORLD!" EASY RIGHT? Then you hear later a guy stood in the same spot for 12 years straight. NOT EASY ANYMORE RIGHT?
Easy is relative term.
Yes, MBS is going to make things a lot easier for you, or so you think, but don't forget it will make it easier for your opponent too! So he's going to use that extra time to do some other crazy shit that will own your ass 10-0 and you start crying on how you're a retarded D/D- player.
The reason you guys think SC2 is going to be shit compared to SC1 is because you are comparing apples to oranges. They're two totally different games and cannot be compared. Yes, you need more APM whatever in SC1 compared to SC2, but does that mean that Jaedong can beat the best SC2 player 1000000-0? I don't think so (and vice-versa).
So wait for the game, play it, enjoy it, work as hard as you can to be #1 in the world, take a million screen shots for posterity, and watch how the (hopefully) Koreans and 100% all-in-no-more-life-for-me underground basement videogame geeks take that spot for themselves and put you in the lower D-/E+ ranks.
Thank you for reading! ^^
 
|
finally, a thoughtful post on MBS and automine
|
I think they're going for the "easy to pick up, hard to master" approach again
except they're widening it to casual gamers as well.
at least now EAPM should be higher?
|
From my experience with >12 units, even though you could 1a instead of 1a2a3a, now you have to be extra careful about what you lump into that group of units. It's too "easy" to 1a with 12 dts, 14 zealots, and 24 stalkers, but it's really a terrible idea. Simple things like flanks, unit composition, and arcs still matter.
|
People aren't thinking to hard if they honestly believe these changes will make SC2 an easy game to be pro at.
|
United States47024 Posts
The thing about MBS/Automine has never been that it lowers the skill ceiling, but that it decreases the amount of difference that practice makes in the lower-mid levels of play. This has to do with how visible of an improvement you can see between improving your mechanics and improving your game-sense/strategy. If you play 100 games, the mass exposure to multitasking and handspeed-intensive situations will improve your skill in those areas. A D-level player who mass-games can very noticeably see an improvement to his skills. This is both encouraging to the low-level player, and helps to distinguish those that practice hard--put simply, in a more handspeed intensive game like Starcraft one, practice is more rewarding at low levels.
Game-sense and strategic aspects of the game are less definite. They require more detailed analysis of your play, and aren't necessarily as tied to how much you practice, but how you do it. A player at low levels could play 100 games, but if he doesn't go back and analyze his losses, he may not gain as much strategic understanding as someone who plays 10 games, and goes through them very carefully. This can be seen as a good or a bad thing. While an emphasis on "smart practice" at the C-level and up is definitely a good thing, it's arguable that the very distinguishing effect that mechanical emphasis has on a low-level ladder (at D-level, having better game-sense might not always be relevant, but macroing better can usually make a noticeable effect) could be a good thing.
(NOTE: Just to be clear, I'm neutral on this issue myself, but it's worth noting that all this "MBS WILL MAKE THE GAME EASIER" stuff is not all nonsense--there is some logic to it.)
|
TheYango makes a very valid and true point and I agree with him because I've experienced myself that indeed, if you focus on your macro only and try to perfect it as much as you can, you WILL see significant improvements in your gameplay (even a going a whole rank up).
But let's compare this situation with the real-life model.
Playing StarCraft nowadays has become more muscle memory than actual thinking with our brains and we all agree with this when we say that mechanics form the most important aspect of the game nowadays. I know a lot of people that can reach B++ by putting emphasis on the mechanical aspect of their gameplay only. So in the end we're all left with a bunch of pro Olympic athletes jumping the same old bar some guy decided to invent 50 years ago.
This is why not everybody in the world earns a Nobel prize or an Oscar (those are the Boxers, sAviOrs, Bisus of SC) but many of them can easily get a PhD. and work for the rest of their lives on what Newton and Einstein once said.
I think SC2 is deviating a bit more off the mechanical aspect of its gameplay and putting that extra emphasis on the mental side of it, which we all hate/find complex the most.
edit: typo
|
United States47024 Posts
What I find interesting is that while a lot of low level players argue in favor of MBS and automine, they stand to gain the least with these features implemented. The reason behind this is practicing habits. As I said above, if the game becomes less mechanically focused, then it is no longer volume of practice that matters, but intelligent analysis that determines how much you get out of your practice. In that respect, the B-level player who's gotten used to analyzing and understanding his games will advance very quickly, despite the obsolescence of some of his mechanical skills. The D-level player, who is supposed to benefit from the changes, does not have the practicing habits in place, and because massgaming will be less effective, will improve more slowly.
|
8748 Posts
I don't think any of the best advocates against MBS, automining, infinite unit selection, etc, were arguing that they simply made the game too easy. Your blog is years behind stuff that's already been posted on TL.
|
You are like one year late lol.
P-S Grrrr Nony said it before -.-
|
SC2 is going to be a lot EasIER, without a doubt. But to call it easy, it still may be harder than other RTS's but it'll be much easier compared to SC1. If you've ever played wc3, then you'll know what you can get with MBS and over 12 units being able to be selected (imo over 12 units selection is not that bad)
|
i thought the argument against MBS was that it makes simplifies one aspect of sc (macro) too much, making it more about micro. i don't think it makes the game easier, but if the micro/macro balance is tilted in one direction too much, it'll deviate from original sc's good micro/macro balance
of course, sc2 is not sc1, so maybe micro intensive battles were what the developers had in mind (although that makes it sound like wc3 with larger armies and units that die faster).
i just hope it doesn't turn out like what ssb brawl did to ssb melee.
|
So he's going to use that extra time to do some other crazy shit that will own your ass 10-0 and you start crying on how you're a retarded D/D- player.
that's just mean. your blog is only a couple above his 
ahah
|
My thoughts on MBS/automine etc.
If you look at wc3, the pro players have apms of 350 or so and they have all of the above mentioned features except being able to select more than 12 units at a time which is almost irrelevant in wc3. I expect the apm you are no longer using to click on 20 barracks to just go to other parts of the game like microing etc at higher levels. I guess it'll also make it easier for the n00b BGHers, so I really don't have a problem with it.
It's kind of stupid saying that a macro mechanic like MBS will lead to greater micro, but I believe that to be the case.
|
Far as I'm concerned, in games that aren't about mechanics (RTSs should not be about mechanics; games like, say, Guitar Hero and FPSs are) the ideal control scheme is to think and automatically have the game do what you want.
The best control scheme is the one that comes the closest to that, imo.
|
People say that SC2 will be easier in terms of macro, not the whole game itself.
So... this thread doesn't really apply.
|
Why do so many fanboys defend Blizzard's terrible choices with SC2? MBS, Automine, >12 Unit selection, these are all terrible decisions and Blizzard should be forced to at least include more macro mechanics, encouraging the removal of skill requirements is just asinine.
|
On August 26 2009 11:36 ghermination wrote:
Why do so many fanboys defend Blizzard's terrible choices with SC2? MBS, Automine, >12 Unit selection, these are all terrible decisions and Blizzard should be forced to at least include more macro mechanics, encouraging the removal of skill requirements is just asinine.
where the hell have you been hiding these years? under a rock?
|
On August 26 2009 11:52 StorrZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2009 11:36 ghermination wrote:
Why do so many fanboys defend Blizzard's terrible choices with SC2? MBS, Automine, >12 Unit selection, these are all terrible decisions and Blizzard should be forced to at least include more macro mechanics, encouraging the removal of skill requirements is just asinine. where the hell have you been hiding these years? under a rock?
Under a bridge more like+ Show Spoiler +
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 26 2009 11:00 crate wrote:
Far as I'm concerned, in games that aren't about mechanics (RTSs should not be about mechanics; games like, say, Guitar Hero and FPSs are) the ideal control scheme is to think and automatically have the game do what you want.
The best control scheme is the one that comes the closest to that, imo.
The necessity for mechanical skill and fast decision making are the two things that really separate RTSs from their turn-based counterparts. Why do you want to eliminate half of that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/3ij8Q.jpg)
