|
On November 04 2008 07:39 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2008 04:39 TheFlashyOne wrote:On November 03 2008 22:38 FrozenArbiter wrote:On November 03 2008 16:02 MYM.Testie wrote:
I have never in my life seen a poll so raped.
Holy shit. The poll links to No twice. On November 03 2008 14:31 Centric wrote:On November 03 2008 13:58 waterGHOSTCLAWdragon wrote:On November 03 2008 13:52 jodogohoo wrote:
send this article to blizzard It's okay, a decent amount of blizzard reads tl.net. 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. But the community IS divided. Guys, the community is NOT divided. 90% of TL.netters are saying that MBS would be horrible. 9% are saying that it wouldn't be that bad...but would still much rather have it removed if they had the choice. and the 1% remaining are making idiotic comments about how MBS would be the best thing. If you combine the first 2 groups, you have pretty much everyone united against it. I think it's pretty obvious that the overwhelming majority doesn't want it. That's not division. No, you are wrong, all you need to do is go back and read some of the 30+ page threads on MBS or dig up the old poll which was pretty close to 50/50 (I'm sure there were illegitimate votes, but that probably goes for both sides). Is the majority of TL against MBS? Yeah probably. 90%? No. Fucking. Way. For crying out loud - Chill (yes, the TL.net admin Chill, terror of the SC Strat forum, THAT Chill) is in favour of MBS. Feel however you want about MBS, but don't underestimate how many real players feel differently.
To emphasize this, let me quote Frank Pearce (Blizzard VP) in a recent interview you posted, specially a portion you highlighted related to D3:
Frank Pearce: It just shows a passion for their preference which is fine. One of the things you find on the internet is that the people who have the most to say are the most vocal.
Now this quote is in relation to Diablo3 and the early complaints about the artistic direction of the game (oddly enough, strangely reminiscent of the early exaggerated SC2 art complaints - "this will ruin diablo" - "i'm not going to buy this game if it looks like that" - "WoW ruined Blizzard" etc.). But I think its a bit relevant to this as well. I'm sure there are some more intelligent MBS supporters out there than the types you'll often see using the stupidest arguments imaginable in the many MBS threads across SC2 forums everywhere. Its easy to think that the only people in support of MBS are unappreciative of e-sports or are just generally poor players, but its probably not the full story. You have to remember that MBS supporters have far less reason to be vocal than the anti-MBS crowd - the mechanic is afterall technically still in the game. They don't really have much to say because their ideal situation is already implimented.
Its important to keep your point of view in perspective. If you read only anti-MBS threads and the like, its hard to imagine that SC2 will be anything but a complete and utter failure, as a game and as an e-sport, which is just not going to be the case. There is plenty of exaggeration and apocalyptic speculation going on and it should be pretty obvious to most readers that MBS will not inherently make the game unplayable, or even an uncompetitive game. I think most would admit that the dangers of MBS are in reality far more subtle than that, potentially lowering the skill cap and minimizing the game's success as an e-sport over an extended period of time. A threat to be sure, but a more nuanced one, with more long term worries than short. The game will still be competitive, it will still probably draw an e-sport scene, and I'm sure the best players will still have an opportunity to make a lot of money playing it, even if its not quite as good as we'd like it to be.
The perfect example of this realization is WC3, which seems to epitomize nearly every single 'feature' that SC fans are praying will not find their way into SC2 for a fear of the end of the e-sport scene for good; heroes, MBS, small army size, bright and saturated colors, focus on micro, etc. But you have to take a step back and realize that WC3 wasn't and isn't a total failure - in fact, far from it. It may not be most of our cup of tea, but it has its own die-hard following, and I'll tell you right now, it can still be an exciting game to watch two professional level people play. Anyone who was at Blizzcon can tell you that while it was nothing compared to the SC finals, the WC3 one actually had a very good crowd response and that's not exactly atypical. The skill cap in the game is clearly out of reach with the emergence of star level players - moon, lyn, grubby, sky, etc. - so far ahead of the pack. Even with some of the most hated elements, the game still managed to captivate not just players, but observers, to the point where they would rather watch people play it than do other things (in this specific case - everything else at Blizzcon including D3 and SC2).
I'm not trying to say MBS isn't going to be a danger (and my personal beliefs about it are unimportant). I'm just trying to offer some perspective. Blizzard isn't ignoring 90% of SC2's future player base by keeping MBS. In fact, unfortunately Blizzard will probably never hear anything at all from the real 90%; they are the ones who quietly lurk here, or the Battle.net forums, or even outside of forums altogether but are still dieing to play SC2 the same as you or me. I'm not even just talking about the casual ones either. Its always shocking to me when I look at how many people register but don't post on the forums I frequent (not to mention the many who don't even go that far) compared to the number of recognizable posters, even on unique but sizable communities like this. There is a silent majority out there who may be split on this issue more than any of us recognize, especially if there is dissent within even vocal community members.
|
perhaps you're right....i can't control lemmings...People are stubborn...lemmings are being lemmings.
i just hope they won't win ....my heart will be so sad.
|
oh my god that poll i didnt expect such overwhelming majority
|
Geno ; im not sure what exactly you were trying to say with your long article; i have nothing against War3.. its a cool game and it has its own fans..and is somewhat of an e-sport..but we both agree that under no circumstrances should War3 attributes be mixed with SC. Warcraft is warcraft. Sc is Sc. So i dont know why you're writing long paragraphs to defend War3,and then to briefly conclude vaguely that MBS is wrong..
MBS shouldnt exist in SC2. Period. There is no valid argument for it. SC1 is 99% manual, and it has been working for 10 years and people with any imaginable caliber are having fun playing it.
Frozen Arbiter...i dont know but man...i dont know where you find all those pro-MBS tl.netters.
im saying 99% of TL is against it.. you're saying its much less..but admit that its the majority. well , i dont know but i'd be extremely surprised, stunned, disillusioned and saddened to learn that more than say, 15%, of TL is actually PRO-MBS. I though TL was a precise representation of competitive BW but i could be wrong.
|
oh dang, here i go again(now its the last one)
Flashy, a lot of TL members dont care about mbs, but its combination with automining(the real problem) and other features(unlimited unit selection) building production queues and w/e
|
okay..for simplicity and only for simplicity...by MBS i meant all automations.... i think MBS is the worst of them but they're all bad.
|
On November 04 2008 10:19 TheFlashyOne wrote:
okay..for simplicity and only for simplicity...by MBS i meant all automations.... i think MBS is the worst of them but they're all bad.
We need a new umbrella term for them all, like EM features. (Easy mode)
MBS is definitely not the worst. It takes out less than half the necessary actions to macro. Instead of Click+m, Click+m, or 3m4m, it's 3mm.
Automine is FAR worse, lowering necessary apm by FAR more. You never have to look back to your CC's past a certain point. 40+ scvs, never having to take your screen back to your CC, never having to select them and telling them to mine. Automine lowers APM a lot more than MBS, and in my opinion is way worse than MBS.
|
yeah , automining looks horrible lol.. hell....any of these look horrible alone...imagine when they are packaged together and then shipped as SC2.....nightmares ahead kids...
|
damn my vote got owned... "no" means "yes"... at least that's what I keep telling my girlfriend :-)
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 04 2008 09:50 Kuja900 wrote:
oh my god that poll i didnt expect such overwhelming majority
The poll is a joke, it has the same option linked twice -_-
On November 04 2008 10:03 TheFlashyOne wrote:
Geno ; im not sure what exactly you were trying to say with your long article; i have nothing against War3.. its a cool game and it has its own fans..and is somewhat of an e-sport..but we both agree that under no circumstrances should War3 attributes be mixed with SC. Warcraft is warcraft. Sc is Sc. So i dont know why you're writing long paragraphs to defend War3,and then to briefly conclude vaguely that MBS is wrong..
MBS shouldnt exist in SC2. Period. There is no valid argument for it. SC1 is 99% manual, and it has been working for 10 years and people with any imaginable caliber are having fun playing it.
Frozen Arbiter...i dont know but man...i dont know where you find all those pro-MBS tl.netters.
im saying 99% of TL is against it.. you're saying its much less..but admit that its the majority. well , i dont know but i'd be extremely surprised, stunned, disillusioned and saddened to learn that more than say, 15%, of TL is actually PRO-MBS. I though TL was a precise representation of competitive BW but i could be wrong.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=60555
As I said before, I think the poll is probably not a perfect representation of TL, as IIRC a lot of people from other forums voted in it as well, but it's more than 15%, no doubt about it.
Saying "no war3 attributes should make it into SC2" is silly btw, if there's a good feature from that - or any other - game it should make it into SC2.
Why MBS Is Essential To a Competitive SC2
Let's imagine SC1 with MBS
MBS suggestions and UI ideas
Competitive play issues
Multiple building selection
[D] MBS Discussion
[D] MBS Discussion II
[D] MBS Discussion III
MBS Discussion IV
|
but while we're on MBS I might as well explain evolution to those of you stuck in 1998
Warcraft I - cannot select multiple units unless you shift click, maximum 4 units selectable
Warcraft II - added drag click, increased maximum selection to 8
Starcraft - added autohealing, increased maximum selection to 12, perfection achieved
Warcraft III - added autocast to everything and became gay
Starcraft II - ??? until you've actually played it
It'd be nice if there was some "strategy" in "real time strategy" instead of it devolving into a click-fest of who can follow their build-order while going 1a2a3a. Starcraft was never supposed to be a tactics game, but a little more strategy during the actual fighting never hurt anyone. If someone beat me because he had some nice dropship micro, that's okay. If someone beat me because he selects a barracks, built a marine, and did that six times in a row faster than I did, that's gay. If you want six marines you should get six marines. Now, I not saying I know whether MBS is good or bad, because I haven't tried it yet. I'm just saying, you're gonna save 10 apm, and maybe, just maybe, you might just find something else useful for that 10 apm. Otherwise, go play clickcraft that's WC2. You had to heal and stim each unit one at a time. You guys would have an orgy with that.
|
no - f u protoss is hard
honestly though, i dont see how blizzard would value retarded scrubs over the people that made their first game a legend (we honestly are part of that crowd ==). Every player is warning them and they aren't listening. It's also not like were saying the game will suck with it, just that it wont be as competitive and that sucks. They really need to fuck off and listen to the hardcore RTS gamers when we say that it will just shrink its dick. Simply Blizzard: MBS limits the potential of the game. It would be like if Starcraft was hardcoded on extra high latency just because. So much potential lost over nothing ==.
Although, it will be interesting to see exactly how far progamers take an MBS SC2 and just how amazing the best player will be when everyone has perfect macro ==.
^---- Still not nearly as cool as no MBS SC2 crazayness though
|
Norway28667 Posts
heres the thing
many of us have played all those 4 games
we all think that starcraft benefitted greatly from the interface updates it got compared to war2 and 1
most of us think the interface changes made to warcraft 3 rather detracted from the game than brought anything positive to it. warcraft 3 is not the game we want starcraft 2 to be- in fact we also believe that making said interface changes to starcraft is going to have an even more negative impact than it had on warcraft 3, as starcraft will be more geared towards macro by default. mbs and automining ruins a significant aspect of that play.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 04 2008 14:10 hunter3 wrote:
but while we're on MBS I might as well explain evolution to those of you stuck in 1998
Warcraft I - cannot select multiple units unless you shift click, maximum 4 units selectable
Warcraft II - added drag click, increased maximum selection to 8
Starcraft - added autohealing, increased maximum selection to 12, perfection achieved
Warcraft III - added autocast to everything and became gay
Starcraft II - ??? until you've actually played it
It'd be nice if there was some "strategy" in "real time strategy" instead of it devolving into a click-fest of who can follow their build-order while going 1a2a3a. Starcraft was never supposed to be a tactics game, but a little more strategy during the actual fighting never hurt anyone. If someone beat me because he had some nice dropship micro, that's okay. If someone beat me because he selects a barracks, built a marine, and did that six times in a row faster than I did, that's gay. If you want six marines you should get six marines. Now, I not saying I know whether MBS is good or bad, because I haven't tried it yet. I'm just saying, you're gonna save 10 apm, and maybe, just maybe, you might just find something else useful for that 10 apm. Otherwise, go play clickcraft that's WC2. You had to heal and stim each unit one at a time. You guys would have an orgy with that.
Why is someone producing units faster than you "gay" but someone clicking his dropship faster than you "okay"? If I want to micro that dropship perfectly it bloody well should micro itself fucking perfectly and I shouldn't have to click so god damn much, right!?
What if I were to just turn this on its head and say "micro = gay, macro = okay"?
The "go back to WC2" argument is just so fucking old, we even had to ban it and its anti-mbs equivalent ("why don't we make the game an interactive movie where you don't have to actually do anything?") in the SC2 forum. Hell it even has a name - The Dune argument.
I don't even have a strong opinion about MBS anymore, maybe it will work out, maybe it wont - we'll see. But no matter if it does or not, not wanting one UI feature does not mean we don't want any UI features, okay?
We want the optimal balance of usability and competitive suitability. Evolution is only positive if it actually makes the game better - I don't think you want to play a game where you don't have to actually do anything anymore than I want to play Dune.
In case you haven't noticed, there has been next to 0 complaints about smartcasting being added to the game (ie in SC if you tell 5 HTs to storm at spot X, they will stack 5 storms, and storm damage doesn't stack. In SC2 only one HT will cast storm).
|
On November 04 2008 14:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
heres the thing
many of us have played all those 4 games
we all think that starcraft benefitted greatly from the interface updates it got compared to war2 and 1
most of us think the interface changes made to warcraft 3 rather detracted from the game than brought anything positive to it. warcraft 3 is not the game we want starcraft 2 to be- in fact we also believe that making said interface changes to starcraft is going to have an even more negative impact than it had on warcraft 3, as starcraft will be more geared towards macro by default. mbs and automining ruins a significant aspect of that play.
this is a really good post
|
|
|
On November 04 2008 14:23 FrozenArbiter wrote:
We want the optimal balance of usability and competitive suitability. Evolution is only positive if it actually makes the game better - I don't think you want to play a game where you don't have to actually do anything anymore than I want to play Dune.
I'll agree with that. I didn't realize my arguments have already been made; I avoid the SC2 forums like the plague. Let's just wait and see...
|
mmm
what about end this now =D
like close the topic sit down and relax.
the more comfortably line anyone would say has been said
Evolution is only positive if it actually makes the game better - I don't think you want to play a game where you don't have to actually do anything anymore
thx F.A
|
On November 04 2008 14:48 hunter3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2008 14:23 FrozenArbiter wrote:
We want the optimal balance of usability and competitive suitability. Evolution is only positive if it actually makes the game better - I don't think you want to play a game where you don't have to actually do anything anymore than I want to play Dune. I'll agree with that. I didn't realize my arguments have already been made; I avoid the SC2 forums like the plague. Let's just wait and see...
wait and see and them have them fundamentally alter the game after releasing the beta?
better idea: think rationally and avoid the problems to begin with.
|
i kinda lost all my energies by being so vocally anti-MBS (or any Easy-mode feature). I do have faith in Blizzard. Intuitively, adding any one of these features will beat the crap out of competitive SC2 + the fun element . In the crazy turn of events that the game still plays great, i'll be the happiest guy. If not, my faith in Blizzard tells me that they'll fix it right after the beta period or during the early patches. Blizzard is known for their continuous and tireless game-changing tweaks and won't like the idea of having an inferior game out...especially one that is supposed to defend the prestige of the SC brand. I can sleep in peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
