No more bullshit [No MBS] - Page 13

On November 03 2008 10:24 LemOn wrote:
The Flashy one in just closed thread:


I know its great for TL to make the game e-sports atractive, but...

Try to see it from the blizzard's point of view.


You can see some profit maximising business plan there. Nobody will argue about that now.

MBS maybe is not important to broad public and first timers, but it is important to reviewers from PC magazines. And they are the ones that provide massive free marketing for the game. And believe me they will ask why is the game so stupid, that you have to click on so many buildings to make only a few units in, when its 2009!?

Its not a barrier for new people to play the game, having no MBS is a barrier from getting the new people to actually try the game.
So its not the question of keeping a casual player, its the question of making any sort of customers to buy the game, maximise revenue and profits with it (as you have huge fixed initial cost during the development, and the more copies you sell, the less those costs are reflected in the marginal revenue).


Unless Starcraft 2 will build its profits around the long term playing of the game (Pay for play Battle.net would be the cure), it will focus on getting the best possible reviews, and making the most people buy the game...

On November 03 2008 11:02 IdrA wrote:

whens the last time a progamer has done a build which doesnt make sense? they take calculated risks, with builds planned against what they believe their opponent will do based on who the opponent is and whatever they manage to scout in game, and they also prep for days planning out how to respond in any given situation. that is what strategy IS, and if you dont think its complex in sc thats just because of your very, very, very flawed understanding of the game. just because you cant appreciate something doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

please enlighten me, what are these grave tactical mistakes that top progamers make because of lack of time? (and of course the mistakes are made at lower levels, because the players arent good enough. thats what skill differentiation is all about) dont spout some bullshit about multi pronged attacks and guerilla stuff, it is an unpopular style because it most often leads to the wearing away of your army as your opponent cleans up your smaller raiding groups with superior forces and slowly builds up a unit advantage. however it does exist in some scenarios, watch flash vs bisu on katrina. flash splitting his army 3 different ways to take out the mass expos with bisu recalling everywhere off 3 star arbs to defend. progamers dont play like that because its not a particularly good style (and thats not a result of sc, its inherent in any game because the defender will always have an advantage) + Show Spoiler +, not because theyre incapable of executing it.

if you want anyone to take you seriously you should stop making idiotic claims in vague abstractions. if you know so much more about the game than people who actually play it, would you please enlighten us? not just brag about your intellectual superiority. people dont only listen to skilled players, skilled players have the necessary background and base knowledge to make informed arguments about the situation. while alot of newbies like yourself make idiotic posts supporting bad positions. people arent agreeing with you not because you arent a skilled player, but because you make bad arguments. and, by the way, the vast majority of the people here posting about sc2 who are against easy mode features are not very good sc players themselves.

On November 03 2008 12:12 Dazed_Spy wrote:
Idra, not trying to challenge you or anything, but: If those strategies were as imbalanced as you imply, they would be used way more frequently, would they not?

I mean, I know strategies can be imbalanced yet aren't used every game because the opponent can get a counter build, but 2 gate proxy and dt rush aren't used even 1/4th of the time.

On November 02 2008 18:57 NightRapier wrote:
This may be a useless comment, but IntoTheWow, this is a good thread and you should feel good.

On November 03 2008 15:28 IdrA wrote:
who knows. progamers didnt abuse a unit with infinite mana that makes your units invincible and all your opponents units die in 1 hit for years. sometimes they dont catch on too fast.

On November 03 2008 16:02 MYM.Testie wrote:
I have never in my life seen a poll so raped.
Holy shit.

On November 03 2008 17:51 PobTheCad wrote:

aye tis a rigged poll
sc2 needs MBS!

On November 03 2008 16:02 MYM.Testie wrote:
I have never in my life seen a poll so raped.
Holy shit.

On November 03 2008 14:31 Centric wrote:

Yeah but in reading incoherent, idiotic posts supporting MBS like some of the ones in this thread they'll think that the community is still "divided" about the issue. I don't think they would give a shit unless we were united behind the stance that these UI fuck-ups are not okay.

On November 03 2008 15:03 TheFlashyOne wrote:



While we both agree that removing MBS would keep both the casuals are hardcore fans happy, your argument is weak because with or without MBS, it's very , very , very unlikely that SC2 will get negative reviews. Blizzard always gets top positive reviews anyway. Pro-reviewers don't have a clue , they base their criticism after a few days of playing it and won't even understand MBS. They'll base their decision on graphics and how cool they think the overall armies are. So the idea that Blizzard will base its decision to include automation and MBS or not based on those reviews is i think very far fetched. Instead, what they want, and rightfully so, is to keep everyone happy. What they fail to understand so far is that they won't make casuals happier by including MBS and other automatism but they will be 100% sure to kill the obvious segment, our segment. SC1 is 99% manual and everyone has been extremely happy for 10 years. Top progamers, hardcore amateurs, mid-level amateurs, n00bies and hardcore newbies. Everyone can play it and have fun. SC1 is near perfect and reaches all imaginable segments of the population. Now, the way SC2 needs to be designed is simply to improve graphics, introduce new units and buildings, keep the manual feeling of the game, keep a similar ultrafast paced gameplay, and there you go. I don't think it's very hard to understand. Basically, there is no valid argument in favor of MBS and other automation. Those who claim that MBS and automining 'aren't actually that bad' are willing to settle for less. Why settle for less? Wake up, this is SC, the cream of the cream of the cream of the crop. I don't want SC2 to be 'actually....not that bad'

On November 03 2008 22:38 FrozenArbiter wrote:

The poll links to No twice.

But the community IS divided.

On November 03 2008 23:08 LemOn wrote:
C&C Brought superfast gameplay, Half Life brought insanely brilliant and smart singleplayer and MOD accessibility, Starcraft brought diversification of races, UT and Q3 gave us awesome multiplayer, W3 came with RPG/RTS combo, WoW is just WoW...
All these games became legendary bestsellers, because they were original, and highly playable at the same time.

On November 04 2008 03:56 maybenexttime wrote:


Casuals will be bothered by the lack of MBS, but the certainly won't be bothered by being unable to hotkey multiple buildings under one key.

The group of players that'll probably whine the most are WC3 players who are semi-decent and refuse to accept the fact that SC2 is not a sequel to WC3 and that it's (SC2) not going to have its macro component as insignificant as WC3's.