There’s no other way to say this: this game will probably affect us all. When Blizzard announced SC2, it was not just another game company announcing another game version 2009. It was like telling a drug addict, "hey can you stop inhaling that shit, because we just created cocaine 2".
First let’s set some things straight. Some of you have already decided to love or hate this game and are simply looking for a battlefield to fight each other. As far as getting BW 2009, the fact is: it will never happen. Stork will ever un-win OSL, Kingdom won't grow new nerves in his wrist and SCII will never be an isometric 2D strategy game.
Why do we care so much? It's pretty obvious: we are a Starcraft tribe. We wake up to VODs, we have newbies for breakfast, watch replays over lunch, and have some more newbies for dinner. We need our dose of mechanics and strategy before we call it a day.
We are different than the people that give feedback on the battle.net forums. They nitpick about realism in a game where aliens and humans fight in space. These people follow hype, love flashy graphics, and use phrases like "GOTY" and "totally playing this omgzz!". These people pay the salaries of the EA employees by buying games often but stop playing after a month or two. We don't want this kind of person telling Blizzard how to make the drug we'll be inhaling for the next ten years.
“Forfeit the game before somebody else takes you out of the frame and puts your name to shame. […] the pace is too fast, you just won't last”
- Linkin Park on SC:BW
Mechanics, APM and Digital masturbation:
The first thing a musical instructor does is teach his student the "proper" way to play an instrument mechanically and efficiently. For example, hand movement, pattern training, and muscle memory are skills piano students learn first. Good piano playing consists of automatic movements that are planned and practiced. A musician can be creative and artistic through proper execution of these movements.
StarCraft is the same way. It is a game of preparation of planning, but also a game of execution and adaptation. One cannot memorize a way to play an entire game, but one can practice the little tasks within the game.
“1sz, 2a.”
- MBS on ZvP
A new player who sees an opportunity to attack lurkers with his marines will hit stop, wait, and think. An experienced player faced with the same situation will 2t3t, 2a3a4a 0s. Because the scenario is familiar, his muscles already know what to do, and he will gain an advantage through instinctual muscle memory.
someone who enjoys playing or listening to piano would find this video interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjsH7I9Gs28
Likewise, someone who enjoys StarCraft would feel the same way about this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roek7iHyCGc Progamer Lee Yun-Yeol teaches us how to play “TvP Symphony Bo.3”
Another example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyJ5dnigrA8
Consequences of watching a NaDa FPVod:
Without MBS: cause motion sickness, seizure, and multiple erections.
With MBS: boredom coma.
SC2 being played to its full potential (with MBS)
Mechanics do not only relate to APM and e-penis. Within the very base of Starcraft as an e-Sport lies the fact that there are different skill levels in Starcraft. The same happens in any other sport. Even though the best football players are probably very talented, I’m sure that they would not be where they are today if they didn’t train 8 hours per day.
+vacuum cleaners?
Casual players play purely for entertainment, while competitive players play to achieve goals. That's what is fun for them and what keeps them playing. Through improvement and skill differentiation, competitive players keep the game fresh and new. Casual players don't care if they suck as long as they have fun. If a competitive player sucks, well those can always modify maps to lower building times.
APM keeps you fit!
The consequences of MBS:
There’s the possibility that MBS will not ruin Starcraft scientists of all over the world have agreed. They said: “It’s about the same probability for YellOw to win an OSL, old memes to be eradicated from Teamliquid and IntoTheWow making a serious article”.
"Protoss is EZ"
We should ask ourselves this question: do we want another casual game or do we want a game we can live, breathe, and lose ourselves in?
I want a game that challenges me as SC:BW did ten years ago. I want a game that I can be proud of being good at but at the same time enjoy playing casually with friends. I want a game that can have a Bonjwa. I want a game that will make e-sports grow internationally. I want a game that will force me to stay up until 5:00 AM to watch it. I want a game without MBS.
In a world with MBS
Poll: Do you agree with the article? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No
I can't believe Blizzard would rather cater the casual gamers, who wouldn't even care or notice if SC2 has MBS or not, over the more serious gamers, who are actually affected.
On November 02 2008 16:12 IntoTheWow wrote:We are different than the people that give feedback on the battle.net forums. They nitpick about realism in a game where aliens and humans fight in space. These people follow hype, love flashy graphics, and use phrases like "GOTY" and "totally playing this omgzz!". These people pay the salaries of the EA employees by buying games often but stop playing after a month or two.
This is exactly why I feel Blizzard is placing priorities in the wrong place.
This is hilarious, but I thought we were done with MBS threads. It would be cool if SC2 could be a competitive e-sport and fun for Jim the Lumberjack (or whoever that bearded guy is).
Players fit into two categories: casual players and people that want to be the best. Casual players shouldn't care about MBS or Automine, they don't make the game easier to learn, they just make the game more difficult to master. Why would you care about mastering the game and being the best if you just want to play for fun? The other side includes people that want to be the best and their entire reason behind wanting MBS and Automine is that it gives them the idea that they can now be the best or be a 'progamer'.
This is a horribly formed argument, but I couldn't find a way to word it correctly. The summary is that casual players shouldn't care if the game has MBS or not. The players that care and want MBS, want it so that they can achieve a skill level that they couldn't without it.
Really hoping that makes sense, also I think it's dumb when people want to put less hours into a game and expect to be better than someone else, because they're simple smarter.
Football for example:
Smart player: Use intelligence to make plays.
'Physical' player: Uses speed and strength to make plays that he has developed through hard work.
SC players should be able to work harder to overcome a lack of strategic knowledge through better macro/micro and smarter players should be able to use their brains to make up for weaker macro/micro. The best players will have both skillsets.
On November 02 2008 17:09 inlagdsil wrote: This is hilarious, but I thought we were done with MBS threads. It would be cool if SC2 could be a competitive e-sport and fun for Jim the Lumberjack (or whoever that bearded guy is).
are you a progamer? is sc not fun for you? they are not mutually exclusive, manual macro and control do not make the game suck for low level players.
On November 02 2008 17:47 IdrA wrote: are you a progamer? is sc not fun for you? they are not mutually exclusive, manual macro and control do not make the game suck for low level players.
Agreed, removing MBS and Automine doesn't make the game harder to learn or less accessible to 'casual' players. The only thing it does is make it harder for them to be a 'progamer'. It's absurd that people are hoping to be the best with minimal effort, practice, dedication, etc..
Oh well at least if MBS exists, 1) i will still stick to BW 2) i will get sc2 for the campaign, obv 3) i will be able to own the people in SC2 (the newcomers who haven't played SC 1)
Haha, a great take on MBS without being bitchy or annoying. =)
I think we all know in the depths of our hearts that SC2 is going to be great... Just not as great as we would like and expect it to be. It's not going to be SC:BW 2.0, like we all hope it to be. It's going to be SC2. We're going to have to accept it, or just stick with regular old Brood War.
I recently picked up RA3, not a bad game, not starcraft either of course. While reading a review (IGN) for the game, one of the things said is that the japanese team requires too much micro. And that this makes playing the japanese team not very fun. All I could think was, what is this guy smoking?, its an RTS game. However its just the state we are at in gaming. People would rather watch the battle play itself than control whats going on. Requiring skill is something games are trying to avoid these days.
On November 02 2008 19:31 Fen wrote: Yeha totally agree.
MBS just outlines the sad world we live in
Short Story
I recently picked up RA3, not a bad game, not starcraft either of course. While reading a review (IGN) for the game, one of the things said is that the japanese team requires too much micro. And that this makes playing the japanese team not very fun. All I could think was, what is this guy smoking?, its an RTS game. However its just the state we are at in gaming. People would rather watch the battle play itself than control whats going on. Requiring skill is something games are trying to avoid these days.
i saw that review as well on youtube and was like WTF. think it was something like "the japanese have bad ground-air so it will require some micromanagement which was kind of annoying though"
Not to mention Empire requires the least amount of micro - it's all about positioning and timing as far as Empire micro goes, whereas there more than that with other factions. (I've played the beta for couple months so I'm not making this up. )
Most reviewers are just plainly clueless. I'm going to buy a Polish magazine in couple of days to see if our reviewers are equally bad as IGN or PCGamer's. T____T
On November 02 2008 18:14 clazziquai wrote: Oh well at least if MBS exists, 1) i will still stick to BW 2) i will get sc2 for the campaign, obv 3) i will be able to own the people in SC2 (the newcomers who haven't played SC 1)
hihi :D
One day you'll meet this random loser with 150 apm in SC2 and you'll play a very very close game with him and just barely come out on top...then you will have a fit and go back BW.
According to the poll we all agree with the article, though I'd say not all, at least not me breathe SC:BW. Nowdays i only play casually and rarely, but still the thing that had and has me coming to SC:BW all this years is the challenging gameplay that is easy to learn, hard to master!
I think we all love a game where we can be challanged in every mean: strategicly, tacticly, mentally and physicly and SC:BW provides that to the fullest potential!
The thing about MBS though is that I am prepared to give it a brake if things like auto-mine, multiple rally-points and smart-casting is removed!
I think SC2 has enough potential to cover-up for MBS easyness as long as the previosly mentioned options I mentioned are removed! One thing is to make 1 sacrifice to make the game easier(such as MBS), but another when there are a lot options/mechanics that make the game easier(smart-cast, auto-mine, etc...)!
I think the focus should be made towards reaching out to the SC2 developers to remove the other automations rather than MBS.
With other automations removed and MBS in the game, the core skill celling will stay, but it will make the action faster for casual players who can now build units faster, while better players will still have an advantage through mechanics like warp-in, queens laying additional eggs for zerg and things like that!
Overall though the devs will need to make a sacrifice from the easy game and remove some of the stuff, just as they made huge sacrifice by removing all of the skill celling that was in SC:BW!
On November 02 2008 20:48 Plexa wrote: Mussorgsky = Starcraft 50cent = MBS
make the right decision blizzard
It's the opposite. Because without MBS, the "mechanical" skills (speed, multitasking, "clicky macro") make the "mental" skills (tactics, ingenious micro, creativity, experience) largely obsolete.
On November 02 2008 20:22 LaZyScV wrote: This is what I have been wondering and would solve (imo) all the problems of being noob friendly and in support of making it an e-sports, a game to master: Why can't they make MBS a feature that can be deactivated by the host of the game - give players of a match the choice of MBS or no-mbs. And/or make it so that the player can choose to turn it on or off - like how in WC3 you can choose your handicap. Is it too hard to program? If they are so dedicated to both the VERY casual players (or non-players, his mom. . . .) and the VERY hardcore players, they should invest the time and money into that - otherwise they will fail one of the groups.
The only thing that makes BW noob friendly is the choice of pace you can play: you can start vs computers on mass money maps, vs other people on mass money maps, vs computers on low minerals, then vs other people on low minerals. And there's a lot of middle ground, like BGH. Can't they do that with MBS? Have full-on MBS and other auto-micro stuff (auto surround is so lame, imo) then tone it down as you progress to having no assistance at all (BW level). If I had a choice of my zerglings automatically surrounding units or just lining up like they do in BW, I'd choose the latter any and every time - and so would every true player of BW, and this goes to MBS.
MBS and other things like this reminds me of all these new toys that are coming out for kids: the toys basically play by themselves and the kid just watches them, not actually playing - the kid gets bored once it gets over how cool it looks and gets used to what it does. Lego's come designed already, instructed building. . . .
What would be the default setting for the ladder? Would Blizzard be willing to balance the game for two modes separately along with team games (no-MBS, auto-mine, smart-cast, whatever certainly require different balance as they have varying attention spans dedicated to unit control etc.)?
As for MBS, I'd rather see auto-mine, "auto-surrounding" and that stupid gas mechanic being removed, and magic boxes/gravity centers being reintroduced.
no to be rude or anything but, whats up with all the hate for mbs and automining. If we compare automatic guns to 100 year old guns, would you rather still use the old ones where u need to reload after every bullet fired? or use the automatic ones with a magazine containing more then just 1 bullet? I know the comparison is not the most brilliant but just because the game evolves and makes certain areas easier, it doesnt mean its going to be bad. It's like saying, lets go back to the old old style and remove grouping, so u have to select units over and over again instead of binding them to 1 2 3 etc... just remove every single management tool and be hardcore/progamer !!!
[B] As for MBS, I'd rather see auto-mine, "auto-surrounding" and that stupid gas mechanic being removed, and magic boxes/gravity centers being reintroduced.
Maybe Blizzard can make a version of sc2 without all those things and show it to scbw junkies on next occasion?
On November 02 2008 21:24 myIRE wrote:hurf durf derp
what if instead of doing all that troublesome reloading, you could just press a button and kill millions of people with a nuke? Now war is about who presses the win button first. thats all casuals like you want, press a button, win the game, see a pretty explosion.
On November 02 2008 21:24 myIRE wrote: no to be rude or anything but, whats up with all the hate for mbs and automining. If we compare automatic guns to 100 year old guns, would you rather still use the old ones where u need to reload after every bullet fired? or use the automatic ones with a magazine containing more then just 1 bullet? I know the comparison is not the most brilliant but just because the game evolves and makes certain areas easier, it doesnt mean its going to be bad. It's like saying, lets go back to the old old style and remove grouping, so u have to select units over and over again instead of binding them to 1 2 3 etc... just remove every single management tool and be hardcore/progamer !!!
On November 02 2008 21:24 myIRE wrote:hurf durf derp
what if instead of doing all that troublesome reloading, you could just press a button and kill millions of people with a nuke? Now war is about who presses the win button first. thats all casuals like you want, press a button, win the game, see a pretty explosion.
some of us like to push ourselves.
dune much? one of you uses it and then you counter on the other side by using it. not smart.
On November 02 2008 20:48 Plexa wrote: Mussorgsky = Starcraft 50cent = MBS
make the right decision blizzard
It's the opposite. Because without MBS, the "mechanical" skills (speed, multitasking, "clicky macro") make the "mental" skills (tactics, ingenious micro, creativity, experience) largely obsolete.
You keep saying this in every single thread, it is simply wrong. Wrong Wrong Wrong It would be great if you actually played broodwar once in a while. Perhaps you would learn something. _I_ don't go to a wc3 forum and say that wc3 is stupid, it's all about beeing able to focus fire different units as fast as possible while moving back your own. Because well that would be stupid of me. Becuase I _know_ that it isn't true even if it feels that way for me. So please please, don't say stupid things about a game you have hardly played. And ingenious article ITW, really great.
On November 02 2008 20:48 Plexa wrote: Mussorgsky = Starcraft 50cent = MBS
make the right decision blizzard
It's the opposite. Because without MBS, the "mechanical" skills (speed, multitasking, "clicky macro") make the "mental" skills (tactics, ingenious micro, creativity, experience) largely obsolete.
You keep saying this in every single thread, it is simply wrong. Wrong Wrong Wrong It would be great if you actually played broodwar once in a while. Perhaps you would learn something. _I_ don't go to a wc3 forum and say that wc3 is stupid, it's all about beeing able to focus fire different units as fast as possible while moving back your own. Because well that would be stupid of me. Becuase I _know_ that it isn't true even if it feels that way for me. So please please, don't say stupid things about a game you have hardly played. And ingenious article ITW, really great.
This.
Try to watch some recent VOD's . Do you think that "mental" skills (tactics, ingenious micro, creativity, experience) are largely obsolete? This is a progaming site, so we try to view the development of a new game from a perspective of an e-sports follower and player...
On November 02 2008 20:48 Plexa wrote: Mussorgsky = Starcraft 50cent = MBS
make the right decision blizzard
It's the opposite. Because without MBS, the "mechanical" skills (speed, multitasking, "clicky macro") make the "mental" skills (tactics, ingenious micro, creativity, experience) largely obsolete.
I'm not really sure how mechanical skills, speed and multitasking skills give you less tools to be creative.
"this is hard therefor I don't like it/takes no real skill, but I am good at everything else ask my mom" (or Chris Sigaty's)
I don't mean to pick on you but, I really don't get where people are coming up with this mass-entitlement thought process. Seems to be so epidemic that I'm starting to wonder if I'll cave under this congnative dissonant pressure.
Sigh. I have two major weaknesses which prevent me from ever becoming good at RTS (any RTS, including SC): I'm slow, and I often fuck up my timing (actually I have quite good timing, but I always try to gain an advantage and think stuff like "I can hold this, just a few more drones..." and then get rolled over). So this really is NOT about me. I DO NOT care about playing good or becoming good or any of this. I'm too old for this stuff anyway, and I don't have enough time for it anymore. This is only about me wanting better games to watch. Really.
I'll give you a *very simple*, very basic, somewhat contrived example about that "mechanical vs mental" thing which TL (at large) doesn't seem to "get", and why I think that MBS will help with that (while SBS does not). This might not be a great example, but it shows you exactly why the faster a game is, the less every player is able to take care of (maybe important) details. I've watched the games on GOM today. In one of Kal's games against that Terran (on Destination) he did some typical reaver/shuttle harassment. At one point, he unloaded the reaver within range of the tank, trying to get a shot off at that tank (which was sieged). However, the reaver was already quite a bit damaged, and once he unloaded the reaver it couldn't survive the tank shot. So the reaver unload was a mistake, he lost it without getting a shot off. Now just imagine SC would be 2 or 3 times slower (doesn't really matter, just that it would be slower. And no I'm *NOT* implying that I would like it to be 2 or 3 time slower, just to get that out of the way because I'm sure some retard would pick on me for writing that). If that were the case, Kal could have LOOKED at the reaver's health before loading it into the shuttle, then he would have KNOWN how much health it had, so then he could have "CALCULATED" if it could survive 1 more tank shot or not. But since SC is such an INCREDIBLY FAST game, the best you do is look at if the unit is green, yellow or red. You do not have TIME for details, you do not have TIME for calculating if your units could take another hit or not. You simply DO NOT! Neither you, nor progamers like Kal. And this is *just one* example of why frantic speed decreases the mental aspect of a game, why details become irrelevant, why even progamers make mistakes like this, why the game does not require intelligence, why it's not chess or Go where you have time to really think your actions through.
It's not a great example, I'm not saying SC should be so much slower so that you should actually do that in every game for every unit. It's really just an example for that "speed vs. mental work" thing, and why the balance in SC is heavily leaned towards speed, making the other thing largely irrelevant (not completely). OK? I would like that balance to be somewhat in the center. I know that speed is essential for the players to have fun, but I also know that the game could be more intricate, complex, and reward "advanced thinking" like what I mentioned. For this to happen, you have to give the players *a little bit* more time, and MBS will do that. Other things, like advanced micro, could also be used with more time. But as I said, I just wanted to give ONE example and hopefully explain it well enough for TL.
I really hope you somehow understood that now. It'll be my last post about that, I've posted enough here today. Don't pick at details on this post (I won't reply anyway), just try to understand the problem I've described on the whole.
I'm not a pro-gamer, but isn't what you just described what balances your mental conflict in the game, the balance of when and where you make decisions. Even assuming your premise, wouldn't the answer just be more practice instead of simplifying the game?
I want a game that challenges me as SC:BW did ten years ago. I want a game that I can be proud of being good at but at the same time enjoy playing casually with friends. I want a game that can have a Bonjwa. I want a game that will make e-sports grow internationally. I want a game that will force me to stay up until 5:00 AM to watch it. I want a game without MBS.
Honestly, I'm pretty sure you WILL have this regardless of wether MBS is in the game or not (from what I hear, MBS on its own is actually fine, the problem is when you combine it with unlimited unit selection, automining, building queues - ie you can queue up 10 supply depots - and the improved AI of units)..
WC3 didn't fail to achieve this because of MBS, it's because it's a very different type of game. And even though WC3 "failed" (failed to make us quit BW is perhaps a better term, since it didn't really fail), it still did pretty well for a failure...
*Tried to find a vod of Moon playing WC3 where you see his hands but I failed* So here's one of him playing SC2 (jump ahead a little bit) + Show Spoiler +
I do hope it costs money to queue supply depots tho (ie if you queue 10 you better get charged 1k minerals instantly).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iSgwjUV750 the really cool micro comes a bit further into the video tho
I don't *want* MBS or automining because I enjoy those tasks and I actually do agree that they make the game better, but I don't think SC2 will crash and burn with them..
[QUOTE]On November 02 2008 16:12 IntoTheWow wrote:
“1sz, 2a.”
- MBS on ZvP
The 2a isn't even necessary, thanks to attack-move rally points. Instead, it's 1s then z till you run out of larvae. The lings attack and surround for you. It's like having "win game" hotkeyed.
I agree, although showing Moon's hands while playing SC2 proves absolutely nothing. After all, WC3 progamers are notorious for inflating their APM by spamming a lot.
You need roughly 150 APM to play WC3 at the very top level (that's from an interview with Grubby conducted by WCReplays some years ago, if anyone wondered; I 'm not making tuff up, it's Grubby if anything) whereas SC requires about 250.
I 100% disagree ..I mean i loved and love starcraft for its strategy part not for mbs, multitasking / mouse skills.. I mean if u really want mbs and find fun to be exhausted after 5 hours in a row of 250 apm then play tetris at speed x 10 or pingpong or something but don t play strategy games ..
On November 03 2008 00:15 maybenexttime wrote: I agree, although showing Moon's hands while playing SC2 proves absolutely nothing. After all, WC3 progamers are notorious for inflating their APM by spamming a lot.
You need roughly 150 APM to play WC3 at the very top level (that's from an interview with Grubby conducted by WCReplays some years ago, if anyone wondered; I 'm not making tuff up, it's Grubby if anything) whereas SC requires about 250.
Yeah but it's not like Nada's 400 isn't inflated ;p
So let's say you'll need 200 for SC2 - sure, it's a step back, but it's not the end of the world.
On November 03 2008 00:15 maybenexttime wrote: I agree, although showing Moon's hands while playing SC2 proves absolutely nothing. After all, WC3 progamers are notorious for inflating their APM by spamming a lot.
You need roughly 150 APM to play WC3 at the very top level (that's from an interview with Grubby conducted by WCReplays some years ago, if anyone wondered; I 'm not making tuff up, it's Grubby if anything) whereas SC requires about 250.
Yeah but it's not like Nada's 400 isn't inflated ;p
So let's say you'll need 200 for SC2 - sure, it's a step back, but it's not the end of the world.
yea but if you take enough steps back you'll eventually fall off a cliff or some stairs
or maybe into one of those fucking spiked cage iron maidens
1. Automining is much worse than MBS. Let's rally to get automining removed first.
2. Haha. I laugh at the people who say mechanical skill in SC makes strategy obsolete. I laugh because it's ironic. Strategy exists at the highest level of SC and it overcomes mechanics in more than half of all professional games. Of course, you all have looked for strategy and have failed to find it. Therefore you suck at strategy. And yet you don't see that conclusion. Instead, you conclude that there is no strategy and so you call for SC2 to rely even more heavily on strategy. Haha.
On November 03 2008 00:18 axel wrote: I 100% disagree ..I mean i loved and love starcraft for its strategy part not for mbs, multitasking / mouse skills.. I mean if u really want mbs and find fun to be exhausted after 5 hours in a row of 250 apm then play tetris at speed x 10 or pingpong or something but don t play strategy games ..
And you, sir, are better off buying DoW2 and watching the game play for you as you put into practice your "grand strategies."
On November 03 2008 00:15 maybenexttime wrote: I agree, although showing Moon's hands while playing SC2 proves absolutely nothing. After all, WC3 progamers are notorious for inflating their APM by spamming a lot.
You need roughly 150 APM to play WC3 at the very top level (that's from an interview with Grubby conducted by WCReplays some years ago, if anyone wondered; I 'm not making tuff up, it's Grubby if anything) whereas SC requires about 250.
Yeah but it's not like Nada's 400 isn't inflated ;p
So let's say you'll need 200 for SC2 - sure, it's a step back, but it's not the end of the world.
Yeah, but APM isn't really what people are worried about anyways. It the game rhythm, attention splitting, etc. With MBS and auto-mining you can pretty much focus on micro only since you can macro remotely. Also all sorts of ambushes will be harder to pull off as players will hardly ever drive their attention away from their units.
On November 03 2008 00:39 Liquid`NonY wrote: 1. Automining is much worse than MBS. Let's rally to get automining removed first.
2. Haha. I laugh at the people who say mechanical skill in SC makes strategy obsolete. I laugh because it's ironic. Strategy exists at the highest level of SC and it overcomes mechanics in more than half of all professional games. Of course, you all have looked for strategy and have failed to find it. Therefore you suck at strategy. And yet you don't see that conclusion. Instead, you conclude that there is no strategy and so you call for SC2 to rely even more heavily on strategy. Haha.
Couldn't agree more.
It's people like 400 (or whatever his nick was) that want "strategy" to matter more while they completely suck at it. The guy said that if he would've expanded all allover the map had he been not restricted by SBS/lack of auto-mining, being completely oblivious to the fact that it'd be totally moronic strategy-wise. T____T
On November 02 2008 23:50 0xDEADBEEF wrote: Sigh. I have two major weaknesses which prevent me from ever becoming good at RTS (any RTS, including SC): I'm slow, and I often fuck up my timing (actually I have quite good timing, but I always try to gain an advantage and think stuff like "I can hold this, just a few more drones..." and then get rolled over). So this really is NOT about me. I DO NOT care about playing good or becoming good or any of this. I'm too old for this stuff anyway, and I don't have enough time for it anymore. This is only about me wanting better games to watch. Really.
I'll give you a *very simple*, very basic, somewhat contrived example about that "mechanical vs mental" thing which TL (at large) doesn't seem to "get", and why I think that MBS will help with that (while SBS does not). This might not be a great example, but it shows you exactly why the faster a game is, the less every player is able to take care of (maybe important) details. I've watched the games on GOM today. In one of Kal's games against that Terran (on Destination) he did some typical reaver/shuttle harassment. At one point, he unloaded the reaver within range of the tank, trying to get a shot off at that tank (which was sieged). However, the reaver was already quite a bit damaged, and once he unloaded the reaver it couldn't survive the tank shot. So the reaver unload was a mistake, he lost it without getting a shot off. Now just imagine SC would be 2 or 3 times slower (doesn't really matter, just that it would be slower. And no I'm *NOT* implying that I would like it to be 2 or 3 time slower, just to get that out of the way because I'm sure some retard would pick on me for writing that). If that were the case, Kal could have LOOKED at the reaver's health before loading it into the shuttle, then he would have KNOWN how much health it had, so then he could have "CALCULATED" if it could survive 1 more tank shot or not. But since SC is such an INCREDIBLY FAST game, the best you do is look at if the unit is green, yellow or red. You do not have TIME for details, you do not have TIME for calculating if your units could take another hit or not. You simply DO NOT! Neither you, nor progamers like Kal. And this is *just one* example of why frantic speed decreases the mental aspect of a game, why details become irrelevant, why even progamers make mistakes like this, why the game does not require intelligence, why it's not chess or Go where you have time to really think your actions through.
It's not a great example, I'm not saying SC should be so much slower so that you should actually do that in every game for every unit. It's really just an example for that "speed vs. mental work" thing, and why the balance in SC is heavily leaned towards speed, making the other thing largely irrelevant (not completely). OK? I would like that balance to be somewhat in the center. I know that speed is essential for the players to have fun, but I also know that the game could be more intricate, complex, and reward "advanced thinking" like what I mentioned. For this to happen, you have to give the players *a little bit* more time, and MBS will do that. Other things, like advanced micro, could also be used with more time. But as I said, I just wanted to give ONE example and hopefully explain it well enough for TL.
I really hope you somehow understood that now. It'll be my last post about that, I've posted enough here today. Don't pick at details on this post (I won't reply anyway), just try to understand the problem I've described on the whole.
All I ask is that you don't post stuff like that about a game you don't understand. Without playing the game you simply can't understand it, so please don't make arguments about what kind of skill bw takes or doesn't take. The reason you don't appreciate the advanced thinking in bw is because you have never experienced it. On the same token you will never appreciate the advanced thinking in sc2 either (MBS or no MBS), because you will never play the game enough to understand it on such a level. Heck I am absolutely convinced a _lot_ of what went on in for example the last OSL finals went right over my head (and according to the last ranking poll I am in the upper 30% of this forum)
As I said, I don't bitch on wc3 forums how I want more strategy in the game since I don't enjoy watching units focus fireing and beeing pulled back over and over again and nothing else. It's a game I don't understand since I haven't played it enough, I recognize that and keep silent. Plese do the same.
As for you example: Kal _tried_ to calculate the reavers health. The entire thing about bw is that he had only 0.1 second to do it and he got it wrong. As a result he was put at a disadvantadge and perhaps even lost the game (No idea I didn't watch). Someone else with a fast enough mind would perhaps have gotten it right, and would thus have earned an advantage. Thus slowing the game down, you take opportunities for those who think faster to outperform those who think slower.
On November 03 2008 00:15 maybenexttime wrote: I agree, although showing Moon's hands while playing SC2 proves absolutely nothing. After all, WC3 progamers are notorious for inflating their APM by spamming a lot.
You need roughly 150 APM to play WC3 at the very top level (that's from an interview with Grubby conducted by WCReplays some years ago, if anyone wondered; I 'm not making tuff up, it's Grubby if anything) whereas SC requires about 250.
Yeah but it's not like Nada's 400 isn't inflated ;p
So let's say you'll need 200 for SC2 - sure, it's a step back, but it's not the end of the world.
APM isnt the big deal
its the fact that you dont have to go back to your base. you just hit 6s and each of your command centers builds an scv, which automatically goes to the nearest mineral patches and starts mining.
Now instead of going back to all your bases, building scvs, telling them to mine etc, which plays a HUGE part in skill differential as fas as macro is concerned, is replaced by hitting 6s once every 30 seconds.
Instead of going back to your base, clicking on a barracks, building a marine repeating (you had to go back to your base because you cant possibly hotkey all your barracks/factories).
All you have to do now is hit 2m. You dont even have to look at your base.
which means while you are microing around the map, other than building buildings (and I should point out building queue) you just have to hit 2m6s or whatever and you dont have to take your eyes off the units.
Late game when you arent building buildings, its 100% micro, 100% watching your units.
On November 03 2008 00:15 maybenexttime wrote: I agree, although showing Moon's hands while playing SC2 proves absolutely nothing. After all, WC3 progamers are notorious for inflating their APM by spamming a lot.
You need roughly 150 APM to play WC3 at the very top level (that's from an interview with Grubby conducted by WCReplays some years ago, if anyone wondered; I 'm not making tuff up, it's Grubby if anything) whereas SC requires about 250.
Yeah but it's not like Nada's 400 isn't inflated ;p
So let's say you'll need 200 for SC2 - sure, it's a step back, but it's not the end of the world.
APM isnt the big deal
its the fact that you dont have to go back to your base. you just hit 6s and each of your command centers builds an scv, which automatically goes to the nearest mineral patches and starts mining.
Now instead of going back to all your bases, building scvs, telling them to mine etc, which plays a HUGE part in skill differential as fas as macro is concerned, is replaced by hitting 6s once every 30 seconds.
Instead of going back to your base, clicking on a barracks, building a marine repeating (you had to go back to your base because you cant possibly hotkey all your barracks/factories).
All you have to do now is hit 2m. You dont even have to look at your base.
which means while you are microing around the map, other than building buildings (and I should point out building queue) you just have to hit 2m6s or whatever and you dont have to take your eyes off the units.
Late game when you arent building buildings, its 100% micro, 100% watching your units.
Which is bad for a huge variety of reasons.
.... You do realize I'm against MBS and I've probably written this exact post you just wrote about 500 times?
The only point of my first post in this thread is that while I agree it's bad, I don't think it's AS BAD as some people think.
The only reason APM was brought up was because ITW posted a vid of nada playing SC, so I posted a vid of Moon playing SC2 (showing his hands are super fast as well), and then maybenexttime commented on the apm being inflated (which Nada's is as well).
My point is simply this: You WILL have a competitive game with or without MBS. You WILL have a game that (greatly) boosts e-sports internationally, with or without mbs.
Will you have a better game with MBS? I don't think so, no.
I dont understand why it cant just be toggled on/off. But although Im not a comp PC gamer, I would still prefer to have these off. But we will have to wait until the beta to actually decide. WHo knows, maybe it may help.
Yeah, but you're trying to prove that by saying they won't decrease the APM required in any significant way, which is not a concern of most people to start with. ^____^;;
On November 03 2008 01:24 maybenexttime wrote: Yeah, but you're trying to prove that by saying they won't decrease the APM required in any significant way, which is not a concern of most people to start with. ^____^;;
Gah I didn't even bring up APM, you brought up APM !! :D
On November 03 2008 01:26 fusionsdf wrote: well I think its as bas as I pointed out in my post above. And people barely looking at their base is pretty damn bad in my books
I don't disagree!!
And one more thing, Moon playing WC3 is obviously very fast, Moon playing SC2 is even faster - just because it's not the same kind of speed as in SC doesn't make it worse, in this context anyway.
EDIT: I'm not sure I'm making this last point very well.. Basically what I'm trying to say is, ITW posts the nada vod as a virtuoso performance, and it is.. And I'm saying a FPVod of Moon is a virtuoso performance as well, just a different instrument.
On November 03 2008 00:39 Liquid`NonY wrote: 1. Automining is much worse than MBS. Let's rally to get automining removed first.
2. Haha. I laugh at the people who say mechanical skill in SC makes strategy obsolete. I laugh because it's ironic. Strategy exists at the highest level of SC and it overcomes mechanics in more than half of all professional games. Of course, you all have looked for strategy and have failed to find it. Therefore you suck at strategy. And yet you don't see that conclusion. Instead, you conclude that there is no strategy and so you call for SC2 to rely even more heavily on strategy. Haha.
There is a reason why geniuses like Grrr, Slayer, Elky cant win vs Jaedong. It is not because they are dumb or lack of strategy. It is because they are too slow.
And i'm quite sure that they all have an higher IQ than Jaedong.
This apm/mechanics vs strategy debate is so retarded. It is like people who say that for example Hopkins is a boxing champion only because of his technical skills. Yea he is an artist but he is also a fucking beast.
On November 03 2008 00:39 Liquid`NonY wrote: 1. Automining is much worse than MBS. Let's rally to get automining removed first.
2. Haha. I laugh at the people who say mechanical skill in SC makes strategy obsolete. I laugh because it's ironic. Strategy exists at the highest level of SC and it overcomes mechanics in more than half of all professional games. Of course, you all have looked for strategy and have failed to find it. Therefore you suck at strategy. And yet you don't see that conclusion. Instead, you conclude that there is no strategy and so you call for SC2 to rely even more heavily on strategy. Haha.
There is a reason why geniuses like Grrr, Slayer, Elky cant win vs Jaedong. It is not because they are dumb or lack of strategy. It is because they are too slow.
its not like jaedong is a total strategy noob.
If grrr played jaedong, at best, at best and thats assuming grr is somehow up to date, it would be strategically even.
so if you got rid of mechanics, maybe it would be close. But you know where this argument leads
you cant compare wc3 and sc to each other, the direction wc3 took was totaly new, concept of heroes? and really, there r no units that deal "ton" of dmg like in sc, where a marine dies in 2 hits (lolz) , so you cant let ur units in wc3 just stand there and do their job, u need to focus fire. on another note, sc2 isnt even out yet and people are calling for armageddon within "pro-scene" anyhow, like, none of you ever felt annoyed of having to click every rax manualy to build something? like 10 years ago, when pro-gaming wasnt even a term? and spamming all over your screen wasnt the only thing that defined starcraft as "the game"?
On November 03 2008 00:39 Liquid`NonY wrote: 1. Automining is much worse than MBS. Let's rally to get automining removed first.
2. Haha. I laugh at the people who say mechanical skill in SC makes strategy obsolete. I laugh because it's ironic. Strategy exists at the highest level of SC and it overcomes mechanics in more than half of all professional games. Of course, you all have looked for strategy and have failed to find it. Therefore you suck at strategy. And yet you don't see that conclusion. Instead, you conclude that there is no strategy and so you call for SC2 to rely even more heavily on strategy. Haha.
There is a reason why geniuses like Grrr, Slayer, Elky cant win vs Jaedong. It is not because they are dumb or lack of strategy. It is because they are too slow.
And i'm quite sure that they all have an higher IQ than Jaedong.
I'm sure Kasparov doesn't have the highest IQ in history, yet I'm sure he'd DESTROY whoever has the highest IQ if they were to play a game of chess. The reason elky will lose to jaedong at BW has nothing to do with IQ, Jaedong is quite simply better at starcraft.
And that is ignoring the great many assumptions you are making about the IQ of Jaedong/the IQ of Elky, Grrr and Slayer (although I'm sure they are all quite smart).
On November 03 2008 00:39 Liquid`NonY wrote: 1. Automining is much worse than MBS. Let's rally to get automining removed first.
2. Haha. I laugh at the people who say mechanical skill in SC makes strategy obsolete. I laugh because it's ironic. Strategy exists at the highest level of SC and it overcomes mechanics in more than half of all professional games. Of course, you all have looked for strategy and have failed to find it. Therefore you suck at strategy. And yet you don't see that conclusion. Instead, you conclude that there is no strategy and so you call for SC2 to rely even more heavily on strategy. Haha.
There is a reason why geniuses like Grrr, Slayer, Elky cant win vs Jaedong. It is not because they are dumb or lack of strategy. It is because they are too slow.
And i'm quite sure that they all have an higher IQ than Jaedong.
On what exactly do you base the assumption that Elky would make better decisions in a game of brood war than jaedong? Becuase I think it is an absolutly horrbibly stupid thing to say.
ah F.A i disagree about automine and mbs making the game better. they absolutelly make this SPORT worse. a big fail in actual game industry are these "UI' improvements, pretty graphics, shallow games. It includes 95% of the games released. From Lost Planet(Epic Fail) to Fallout 3(such a shame to a interesting franchise) games like the good old megaman 4, where u doesnt have dashes over dashes, fucking special moves that "NY1" can do are incredibly fun and challenging to players. The biggest problem here is what ppl find evolution, approach games to reality is not the correct way to follow, nor make things easier and easier, know why? Cause what will happen in the next 30 years? games played by voice command? cerebral waves? the death of videogames? this time we got mbs and automine in sc2, under the argument that it will please the retarded players, a community that grows in geometrical progression, in sc3 they will try to implant voice commands, in sc4 even war casualities without the arms and blind ppl will be able to play, and in sc5 ... well there will be no sc5, prolly even the earth wont exist anymore
@IQ shit
dude, this is fucking horrible, IQ isnt the absolute true nor the exact representation of a person intelligence, Isaac Newton had incredible Math skills that could not be represented by his IQ f/e
On November 03 2008 01:38 myIRE wrote: you cant compare wc3 and sc to each other, the direction wc3 took was totaly new, concept of heroes? and really, there r no units that deal "ton" of dmg like in sc, where a marine dies in 2 hits (lolz) , so you cant let ur units in wc3 just stand there and do their job, u need to focus fire. on another note, sc2 isnt even out yet and people are calling for armageddon within "pro-scene" anyhow, like, none of you ever felt annoyed of having to click every rax manualy to build something? like 10 years ago, when pro-gaming wasnt even a term? and spamming all over your screen wasnt the only thing that defined starcraft as "the game"?
No, I was never annoyed by that. I was never annoyed by WC2. When I played casually I didn't care at all - the game was fun as hell. When I started playing seriously I saw some of the korean FPVods and was like "woooooow I want to be able to do that!!".
Your last comment about "spamming all over your screen" is ignorant and offensive.
On November 03 2008 01:42 Ki_Do wrote: ah F.A i disagree about automine and mbs making the game better. they absolutelly make this SPORT worse. a big fail in actual game industry are these "UI' improvements, pretty graphics, shallow games. It includes 95% of the games released. From Lost Planet(Epic Fail) to Fallout 3(such a shame to a interesting franchise) games like the good old megaman 4, where u doesnt have dashes over dashes, fucking special moves that "NY1" can do are incredibly fun and challenging to players. The biggest problem here is what ppl find evolution, approach games to reality is not the correct way to follow, nor make things easier and easier, know why? Cause what will happen in the next 30 years? games played by voice command? cerebral waves? the death of videogames? this time we got mbs and automine in sc2, under the argument that it will please the retarded players, a community that grows in geometrical progression, in sc3 they will try to implant voice commands, in sc4 even war casualities without the arms and blind ppl will be able to play, and in sc5 ... well there will be no sc5, prolly even the earth wont exist anymore
You misread, I said I think they will make the game WORSE, but I don't think they will destroy it.
I *love* difficult games, I recently started playing the platformer I wanna be the guy (you should dl it, it's free - or at least look at some vids on youtube) and I love it (I need to beat one more boss before the final, but wtf it's the only thing that's annoyed me so far - the boss takes a stupidly long time to appear so you have to waste like 30 seconds for his entrance animation to finish every single time, so I just decided that fuck it, I enjoyed the rest of the game, I can finish this bit some other day).
On November 03 2008 01:38 myIRE wrote: you cant compare wc3 and sc to each other, the direction wc3 took was totaly new, concept of heroes? and really, there r no units that deal "ton" of dmg like in sc, where a marine dies in 2 hits (lolz) , so you cant let ur units in wc3 just stand there and do their job, u need to focus fire. on another note, sc2 isnt even out yet and people are calling for armageddon within "pro-scene" anyhow, like, none of you ever felt annoyed of having to click every rax manualy to build something? like 10 years ago, when pro-gaming wasnt even a term? and spamming all over your screen wasnt the only thing that defined starcraft as "the game"?
no, because if you dont want to have great mechanics and practice hitting barracks and building marines etc, you can still do that.
I mean its entriely possible for a 30APM mouse only noob to come in and have fun. Mosy of us started out that way. The only time its not fun for that noob is when hes getting run over by players with better mechanics. But you have automatchmaking to fix that, not MBS.
Its like play piano. A three year old with no muscle control can still have fun playing a keyboard, but if you want to play a keyboard well (competitively) you need the mechanics and practice to do so, which really isnt to be unexpected.
On November 03 2008 01:40 KlaCkoN wrote: On what exactly do you base the assumption that Elky would make better decisions in a game of brood war than jaedong? Becuase I think it is an absolutly horrbibly stupid thing to say.
What i know is that Jaedong has 400+ effective apm and a beastly macro / control. Call it strategy if you want but when i see him moving a large hydra army with stacked mutas to pick off templars at the same time i think it is mechanics. Same when he used a double muta harrass vs upMagic I wish i could do that. I know his bo but i cant. I'm too slow and my multitask is horrible.
On November 03 2008 01:40 KlaCkoN wrote: On what exactly do you base the assumption that Elky would make better decisions in a game of brood war than jaedong? Becuase I think it is an absolutly horrbibly stupid thing to say.
What i know is that Jaedong has 400+ effective apm and a beastly macro / control. Call it strategy if you want but when i see him moving a large hydra army with stacked mutas to pick off templars at the same time i think it is mechanics. Same when he used a double muta harrass vs upMagic I wish i could do that. I know his bo but i cant. I'm too slow and my multitask is horrible.
Umm what? Yes moving a largy hydra stack while muta harrasing is mechanics. Knowing a bo is such a small, small, small part of strategy in broodwar. You are just expected to know them, it's not skill really, not anymore than knowing basic openings in chess is "skill".
I ask again on what grounds do you base the assumption that Elky would make better decisions in a game of brood war than jaedong? Becuase I think it is an absolutly horrbibly stupid thing to say
On November 03 2008 01:58 fusionsdf wrote: You cant assume just because one player has really good mechanics that he has no strategy behind them
I never said that Jaedong knows nothing about strategy or is stupid. I just said that he is fast and has a nearly flawless execution. I wanted to point out that the main difference between oldschool and young players is mechanics, and with all the new macro maps it is even more true.
@ Klackon: it is a fucking RTS not a turn based game; If your opponent has way better mechanics you lose except maybe if you cheese.
On November 03 2008 01:58 fusionsdf wrote: You cant assume just because one player has really good mechanics that he has no strategy behind them
I never said that Jaedong knows nothing about strategy or is stupid. I just said that he is fast and has a nearly flawless execution. I wanted to point out that the main difference between oldschool and young players is mechanics, and with all the new macro maps it is even more true.
I disagree again, the players of today make much, much better decisions in game than they did when elky played.
This isn't saying that elky couldn't have been really good had he played 10 hours a day in a pro team today, of that I have no idea.
On November 03 2008 01:58 fusionsdf wrote: You cant assume just because one player has really good mechanics that he has no strategy behind them
I never said that Jaedong knows nothing about strategy or is stupid. I just said that he is fast and has a nearly flawless execution. I wanted to point out that the main difference between oldschool and young players is mechanics, and with all the new macro maps it is even more true.
yes, mechanics have improved over time, but when two players have the same mechanics, strategy will win the day, and its possible for a good strategy to overcome better mechanics and good enough mechanics to overcome a better strategy. Which is as it should be in my view.
I mean lets say its a zvz and its a build order loss. Lets say I went 9pool vs 12 pool or something. It should still be possible for me to overcome if I have better mechanics than the other player.
On November 03 2008 01:24 maybenexttime wrote: Yeah, but you're trying to prove that by saying they won't decrease the APM required in any significant way, which is not a concern of most people to start with. ^____^;;
Gah I didn't even bring up APM, you brought up APM !! :D
Well, you brought up Moon's hands so that was my conclusion.
On November 03 2008 01:38 myIRE wrote: you cant compare wc3 and sc to each other, the direction wc3 took was totaly new, concept of heroes? and really, there r no units that deal "ton" of dmg like in sc, where a marine dies in 2 hits (lolz) , so you cant let ur units in wc3 just stand there and do their job, u need to focus fire. on another note, sc2 isnt even out yet and people are calling for armageddon within "pro-scene" anyhow, like, none of you ever felt annoyed of having to click every rax manualy to build something? like 10 years ago, when pro-gaming wasnt even a term? and spamming all over your screen wasnt the only thing that defined starcraft as "the game"?
I played Generals, WC3, DoW, Armies of Exigo and some other games before I even touched SC online, and I wasn't put off by having to manually click each Factory.
I guess you're one of those stubborn casual players who refuse to learn to macro or get faster in general by principal. If you ever tried you'd realize that learning that takes like a week at best. The real skill is knowing WHEN to do WHAT - not being able to click on buildings in a rapid fashion (that's actually pretty easy...).
Seriously, if you dislike "spamming allover your screen" then you're better off watching a movie and not playing a game of StarCraft.
On November 03 2008 02:13 fusionsdf wrote: yes, mechanics have improved over time, but when two players have the same mechanics, strategy will win the day, and its possible for a good strategy to overcome better mechanics and good enough mechanics to overcome a better strategy. Which is as it should be in my view.
I mean lets say its a zvz and its a build order loss. Lets say I went 9pool vs 12 pool or something. It should still be possible for me to overcome if I have better mechanics than the other player.
On November 03 2008 01:58 fusionsdf wrote: You cant assume just because one player has really good mechanics that he has no strategy behind them
I never said that Jaedong knows nothing about strategy or is stupid. I just said that he is fast and has a nearly flawless execution. I wanted to point out that the main difference between oldschool and young players is mechanics, and with all the new macro maps it is even more true.
@ Klackon: it is a fucking RTS not a turn based game; If your opponent has way better mechanics you lose except maybe if you cheese.
Yes. However I have never said otherwise. My original response was provoked by you saying that genious Elky could never beat jaedong just because jaedong is faster. Thus implying that Elky would indeed stand a chance if he was equally fast as jaedong. I said that I have no reason to belive that Elky would make equally good decisions as jaedong in a game of brood war.
I hope that when SCII Beta comes out, ppl bitchs about MBS, smartcasting and crap like that sooooOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOoooooo hard that Blizzard is going to leave just 2 or 3 of these things in the game instead of all of them, like infinite unit selection or something like that and that´s it... because right now I just can´t see a real and competitive pro or hardcore amateur community gaming this thing... just moms and retarded assholes saying "Zomgzordz, 130 spamming APM!!!11!11! Watch out world!!111423!! Oh and look my 3 rax, they don´t stop pumping rines, 133t macro!!!22!12121!!!"
I mean, like it or not, like someone said in other thread about this, RTS tend to evolve and get easier in an inevitably way, but not in a stupid-retarded-easying way like having MBS, automining and shit like that, but yes letting you have 12 units in a battle group instead of 4 for example... so Blizz, if you want your moms playing SCII, create a funny and catching, monthly-patched with new shit Single Player campaign, and leave the fun and competitive side of the game in the Multiplayer campaign for the real soul of the game, the gamers, and cut with this shit of MBS and crap plz... for your and our good, because if this game sucks balls, all of us end losing...
im really interested hows sc2 gonna be and i really hope that sc2 wont release until 2010. and for the most i reeaaaaaaaaaallly hope that sc2 is gonna require at least as much skill as sc and wont be anything like wc3, sc2 should be sc not just "another 3d strategy game".
The main problem is that you can have lot of strategy knowledge with experience and without being "active". I think that people around D+/ C level know already a lot about this game. But if you want to be the best being smart won't be the most important thing at first. You will have to train 10 hours a day to get flawless mechanics because having good ideas and cheese wont always save you + if you rely to much on Dt cheese you will make Idra cry about imbalances :p.
So in my opinion mechanics and fast reaction time > strategy nowadays because this game has been quite figured out. However there is also the rock/paper /scissor situations like 3 gates goon vs 2 gates + obs or 5 pool vs Fe. It isnt strategy imo, just some BO gambles.
Seriously you guy should understand that Stracraft in itself isnt a really difficult game. Strats are easy to understand ( dropping units being mineral line, making more gates/facts to do a timed attack ) this is why it is also so popular even among noobs. But it is also a fast paced RTS, that is why it is so hard to master and addictive. you can't wait for 1 min think about your next move, you are constantly busy, making units, moving units, making buildings, scouting and so on. That is why you need to be fast and have a good control. If Sc had a slower pace it would have died a long time ago because the game in itself is dull. Speed makes it interesting.
I agree that you need to stay active - that's part of the reason why it's a sport and not a mere game, imo.
I think SC2 should stay that way. It's not like it'll get figured out right after release. It'll take years to get to the point SC1 did, albeit slightly less due to players having plenty of SC1 experience.
Creative play will reign supreme for several years after release unless the game is somehow broken.
On November 03 2008 00:39 Liquid`NonY wrote: 1. Automining is much worse than MBS. Let's rally to get automining removed first.
2. Haha. I laugh at the people who say mechanical skill in SC makes strategy obsolete. I laugh because it's ironic. Strategy exists at the highest level of SC and it overcomes mechanics in more than half of all professional games. Of course, you all have looked for strategy and have failed to find it. Therefore you suck at strategy. And yet you don't see that conclusion. Instead, you conclude that there is no strategy and so you call for SC2 to rely even more heavily on strategy. Haha.
There is a reason why geniuses like Grrr, Slayer, Elky cant win vs Jaedong. It is not because they are dumb or lack of strategy. It is because they are too slow.
And i'm quite sure that they all have an higher IQ than Jaedong.
This apm/mechanics vs strategy debate is so retarded. It is like people who say that for example Hopkins is a boxing champion only because of his technical skills. Yea he is an artist but he is also a fucking beast.
But you haven't contradicted anything I've said. I agree that physical ability is required. I think all top players hit a similar level of physical ability and then strategy determines the majority of games. I'm a firm supporter of comparisons to sports like American football or basketball. All of the athletes need a minimum level of physical ability to even compete but strategy and preparation from the coaches and the team as a whole are what determine the outcome of most games. A casual and uninformed spectator has no chance of discerning the strategy going on but the physical ability will immediately catch their eyes. Obviously the trained professional athletes could trounce some fatties without using an ounce of intelligence, but when competing against each other, decision-making and strategy are the only ways to overcome. The casual spectator misses that and simply thinks that the stronger, faster, more accurate guy always wins.
I'd wager that Grrrr, Slayer, and Elky would admit that even if they had equal physical ability to Jaedong, it'd take them quite a bit of training to put those abilities to good use. I don't know what you mean by the IQ comment exactly... Are you saying that if all physical ability was equal, and only the intellectual part of BW mattered, then Jaedong would never win against Grrrr, Slayer, and Elky? You yourself are choosing to make this debate "retarded" by forming arguments with such wild speculations. The debate can be meaningful and effective if nonsense can be avoided.
To sum it up, we can imagine that there are definitive levels of BW skill: Top progamer, bottom progamer, top Korean amateur, top non-Korean amateur, bottom non-Korean amtaeur, typical iCCup player, typical b.net player, newbie. The levels are separated by physical skill. In other words, a higher level can beat a lower level by doing a mundane strategy simply because of significantly superior mechanics. But when players of the same level play each other, most of the games are determined by strategy/tactics/other 'thinking' parts of the game. I see this as the perfect model for a sport or an e-sport. The physical skill BW requires has been proven to work already so I advocate SC2 requiring a similar amount of physical skill. ("If it aint broke, don't fix it" argument).
I totally agree with you nony about the "physical levels" About my IQ comments, i guess this isnt the accurate word. I wanted to say that the oldschool players used to be really smart and creative.
On November 03 2008 02:31 Boblion wrote: The main problem is that you can have lot of strategy knowledge with experience and without being "active". I think that people around D+/ C level know already a lot about this game. But if you want to be the best being smart won't be the most important thing at first. You will have to train 10 hours a day to get flawless mechanics because having good ideas and cheese wont always save you + if you rely to much on Dt cheese you will make Idra cry about imbalances :p.
So in my opinion mechanics and fast reaction time > strategy nowadays because this game has been quite figured out. However there is also the rock/paper /scissor situations like 3 gates goon vs 2 gates + obs or 5 pool vs Fe. It isnt strategy imo, just some BO gambles.
Seriously you guy should understand that Stracraft in itself isnt a really difficult game. Strats are easy to understand ( dropping units being mineral line, making more gates/facts to do a timed attack ) this is why it is also so popular even among noobs. But it is also a fast paced RTS, that is why it is so hard to master and addictive. you can't wait for 1 min think about your next move, you are constantly busy, making units, moving units, making buildings, scouting and so on. That is why you need to be fast and have a good control. If Sc had a slower pace it would have died a long time ago because the game in itself is dull. Speed makes it interesting.
this in my opinion is solved by automatchmaking and a fairly deep but balanced game. SC2 provides more options - cliffwalkers, high yield minerals, destructable barriacades (and honestly no one has complained about these despite them being new, its not like we hate everything they've changed) - for strategy (mbs doesnt improve strategy, it just makes it more important compared to macro).
So if you are really good at abusing what should be deeper strategies, you will be able to beat players slightly better than you in terms of mechanics. Which means with automatchmaking you will still have a pretty good chance of winning, youi will just be relying more on strategy than some players.
In competitive play, we expect our idols to be macro gods, we expect them to keep pushing the bounds of mechanics. I mean you have to look at the older players. Boxer, nada, stork, much, free have all improved their macro over the years. Mechanics is just taught by playing. So I dont think any strategical gods would be locked out of progaming, they would just have to practice until their mechanics improve.
another problem here is, some ppl think they know what strategy is like... some ppl think 3 hatch muta( mutalisk harass then lurker to defilers) is not strategy just because it has been made a lot of times, ppl think that strategy is a static defense with some tanks and turrets in the middle of the map, making use of the cliffs , if ur fking plan is to harass the enemy economy to cripple him, its ur strategy, no matter if this has been made 10zillion times, the strategies used by progamers are so complex that require multitask training to be performed, if you dont like them just use urs against ur friends with 50 apm, the higher the skill level grows, the harder it gets to perform high class build orders, the only ones who complain about that are rly nonsense, a lot of newbies in b.net use korean bos, even without the enough mechanics to do that, things like 2gate FE, proxy gateway, 1rax fe and dont even care about not being able to do this like the pros, since it work against ppl at the same lvl
On November 03 2008 02:31 Boblion wrote: The main problem is that you can have lot of strategy knowledge with experience and without being "active". I think that people around D+/ C level know already a lot about this game. But if you want to be the best being smart won't be the most important thing at first. You will have to train 10 hours a day to get flawless mechanics because having good ideas and cheese wont always save you + if you rely to much on Dt cheese you will make Idra cry about imbalances :p.
So in my opinion mechanics and fast reaction time > strategy nowadays because this game has been quite figured out. However there is also the rock/paper /scissor situations like 3 gates goon vs 2 gates + obs or 5 pool vs Fe. It isnt strategy imo, just some BO gambles.
Seriously you guy should understand that Stracraft in itself isnt a really difficult game. Strats are easy to understand ( dropping units being mineral line, making more gates/facts to do a timed attack ) this is why it is also so popular even among noobs. But it is also a fast paced RTS, that is why it is so hard to master and addictive. you can't wait for 1 min think about your next move, you are constantly busy, making units, moving units, making buildings, scouting and so on. That is why you need to be fast and have a good control. If Sc had a slower pace it would have died a long time ago because the game in itself is dull. Speed makes it interesting.
Did you watch Nony versus july? For a looong time noone made any offensive moves at all. But when early game was over July was ahead. Not just by a small amount either. So do you think the reason for this was Nony failing to follow a basic B.O? Or July reading that B.O like a book and constantly doing small stuff that he knew would get him ahead versus that particular B.O and nony in turn failing to adapt to that?.
Or jaedong versus whoever on othello, quite a while ago. Where he far into midgame popped a bunch of mutas to deal with a goon/temp timing attacked. Even rekrul, who was quite a good player was absolutely amazed by the perfect timing. Jeadong saw this window coming ahead of time and used a counter noone before had used. Do you really think a random C guy would be able to do that?.
Having flawless timing and execution isnt my definition of strategy. I won't respond to your posts anymore because it is useless, we have different ideas.
@ fusion: as you said new game features will really help to make the gameplay deeper and more interesting.
On November 03 2008 02:54 Boblion wrote: Having flawless timing and execution isnt my definition of strategy.
Execution has nothing to do with either of my examples. Timing yes, in the second one but what was amazing was that he saw the attack coming long before it came. Not only that he knew _when_ it would come and had the perfect counter ready right when it did. AND it was a completely new counter. This is strategy. Continually adapting your game plan to what you opponent is doing, abusing all the small timings to your favour is strategy. Planning a cheese ahead of time is also strategy sure, but in my oppinion nowhere near as impressive. And 3 hat muta> expand> lurkers > defilers is NOT strategy. It's just how the game flows
If the game ends up having mbs, my random clueless guess is that games will play out like this.
Early game build orders make a big difference, almost like zvz. Micro going on for 5 minutes, possibly to secure an expo. Players start to macro, first to 200/200 wins (estimated build time 2 minutes)
Klackon stop to troll please. Even a D+ noob can see if an attack is coming, and that mutas pwn speedlots. But July had also the mechanics to beat it whereas the D+ noob can't and will lose all his mutas to a storm or an archon.
On November 03 2008 03:02 KlaCkoN wrote: And 3 hat muta> expand> lurkers > defilers is NOT strategy. It's just how the game flows
u might be joking please, u are saying that hat muta> expand> lurkers > defilers is game flow? so funny, u are saying that these actions are spontaneous then? no progamer ever joins a battle without a plan in his mind, without knowing what to do if something happens. U just made an epic fail, first u say that starcraft is mechanics , now u say that its spontaneous "flow"
On November 03 2008 03:09 Boblion wrote: Klackon stop to troll please. Even a D+ noob can see if an attack is coming, and that mutas pwn speedlots. But July had also the mechanics to beat it whereas the D+ noob can't and will lose all his mutas to a storm or an archon.
-_- The attack was a goon/temp timing attack that came way, way later than a normal speedlot attack. (Which I also stated in my post) As I said rekrul was amazed, and well his understanding of this game surpasses yours by quite a margin.
You still haven't adressed the fact that nony couldn't even get out of early game without beeing disadvantadged against july.
Or for that matter that nony himself in this thread said that strategy plays a huge roll in high levels of bw.
If you truly are soo caught up in your C- skill that you think you understand the nuances of this game as well as pros then I don't know what to say. I guess I will have to wait for someone (Testie please??) to come flame you.
Because well, your stupidity is so mindblowing that it deserves a decent flame. The guy above me has a point I'm afraid, >< Continue this via pm?
What Nony wrote here is in contrast to what Artosis wrote in a somewhat recent thread (about the ability to follow the most solid standard build orders and great mechanics being the most important thing). Also, progamers often gamble with BOs, that is definitely true, we see some really crazy openings sometimes which rarely make sense, and it's all because they think they can get away with it (because they hope the opponent doesn't think they'd do that particular BO). It's basically a blind guess, although TL users will call this amazing psychological tricks. TL users might confuse BO gambling with having ingenious strategy (but only if a progamer is doing it). But really, strategy is incredibly shallow in SC. Tactics, on the other hand, is *theoretically* complex in SC, but in practice it's also quite shallow (but still a lot deeper than strategy) since the high speed forces the players to only do the absolutely most important tasks and ignore a lot of other tasks which *could* give them an advantage *if* they had additional time for them, but since they do not, they are ignored in favor of the more important tasks. Unfortunately though, the most important tasks are rather shallow ("clicky macro" (I like that term) and all related stuff ... all part of mechanics, which the spectators also don't see (another negative aspect)). And these discussions are always running into a dead end anyway since players will only listen to who is the most skilled player at this very moment. Which is the reason why gameplay discussion on TL is so goddamn awful - players don't use common sense, don't use intelligence, don't use good arguments to discuss gameplay - they just look at how skilled the player who's arguing is at this very moment, not realizing that a lot of gameplay discussion is unrelated to skill (best example: the Blizzard employees, they're all SC noobs, but know a shit ton more about gameplay than any wannabe here from TL)
It's not crap (it's the Truth™) and most care since these discussions always grow fairly long. Plus, I still haven't been banned yet although I'm the only one here constantly criticizing SC1 (which is actually blasphemy on this site). Which is really kind of amazing, because trolls are banned instantly here, and there are a lot of banned users. It almost makes me think that the mods are actually smart enough to realize that a lot of what I write is true. Almost... I've kinda lost hope that there's someone else here other than delusional fanbois who think that everything about SC1 is amazing, even its obvious flaws.
Just wanna say that I'm SC:BW big noob and when I play with my noobish friends online or at the office, we actually enjoy SPLITTING SCVs and MACROING because that's the kind of details that make us feel "hey I'm doing like the pros kekeke". And that's what SC is all about. So Blizzard should stop thinking noobs don't like "learning", that's part of the relationship with the game.
On November 03 2008 03:39 0xDEADBEEF wrote: What Nony wrote here is in contrast to what Artosis wrote in a somewhat recent thread (about the ability to follow the most solid standard build orders and great mechanics being the most important thing). Also, progamers often gamble with BOs, that is definitely true, we see some really crazy openings sometimes which rarely make sense, and it's all because they think they can get away with it (because they hope the opponent doesn't think they'd do that particular BO). It's basically a blind guess, although TL users will call this amazing psychological tricks. TL users might confuse BO gambling with having ingenious strategy (but only if a progamer is doing it). But really, strategy is incredibly shallow in SC. Tactics, on the other hand, is *theoretically* complex in SC, but in practice it's also quite shallow (but still a lot deeper than strategy) since the high speed forces the players to only do the absolutely most important tasks and ignore a lot of other tasks which *could* give them an advantage *if* they had additional time for them, but since they do not, they are ignored in favor of the more important tasks. Unfortunately though, the most important tasks are rather shallow ("clicky macro" (I like that term) and all related stuff ... all part of mechanics, which the spectators also don't see (another negative aspect)). And these discussions are always running into a dead end anyway since players will only listen to who is the most skilled player at this very moment. Which is the reason why gameplay discussion on TL is so goddamn awful - players don't use common sense, don't use intelligence, don't use good arguments to discuss gameplay - they just look at how skilled the player who's arguing is at this very moment, not realizing that a lot of gameplay discussion is unrelated to skill (best example: the Blizzard employees, they're all SC noobs, but know a shit ton more about gameplay than any wannabe here from TL)
I used to love intotheWow cuz he is argentinian, now I love him cuz he says with humour what I've been thinking since the day I saw the first presentation of SC2.
@DeadBeef i don believe u werent baned cause tl staff thinks ur right, when most of the time, even tl staff are complaining about lack of macro in sc2, what u seem to love but if thats the problem, if u want ur precious sc2 to have zero macromanagement u can stick with it, brood war proscene wont die to a n00b game
awesome article... if they noobify SC2 i will cry.
i know this is a strange example.. but the whole reason I got into Starcraft was because super smash brothers brawl came out. I played super smash brothers melee really competitively and it was (still is) awesome. Brawl basically ruined the series by removing almost every technique that made the game difficult into something that is automatically done for you or just not in the game, and now the tournament scene for the game is stagnating and dying. I hope they don't do the same to SC2...
I just do not understand the logic of making a game easier to play to attract noobs... Giving everyone OOV macro does not really make the game more fun for a noob, all it does is limit the depth of the game as all of the mechanical techniques will be mastered within months of release.
Poll: Who the fuck voted no (Vote): IntoTheWow himself cuz everybody like paradoxes (Vote): Some random n00b (Vote): An offended Blizzard staff member (Vote): WC8 in a new desperate attempt to ruin TL
On November 03 2008 02:44 Boblion wrote: I totally agree with you nony about the "physical levels" About my IQ comments, i guess this isnt the accurate word. I wanted to say that the oldschool players used to be really smart and creative.
That's because the game was mostly unexplored then, thus giving much greater value to creativity/"talent".
Furthermore, the talent pool used to be bigger (for foreigners) AND there was simply more room for people to actually showcase their creativity, as while someone today might be really creative, some openings are just inferior etc.
On November 03 2008 03:46 0xDEADBEEF wrote: It's not crap (it's the Truth™) and most care since these discussions always grow fairly long. Plus, I still haven't been banned yet although I'm the only one here constantly criticizing SC1 (which is actually blasphemy on this site). Which is really kind of amazing, because trolls are banned instantly here, and there are a lot of banned users. It almost makes me think that the mods are actually smart enough to realize that a lot of what I write is true. Almost... I've kinda lost hope that there's someone else here other than delusional fanbois who think that everything about SC1 is amazing, even its obvious flaws.
You are not banned because you don't troll, and I'm not gonna ban someone just because he thinks differently from me.
I find some of your comments in this thread a bit offensive tho, obviously not banworthy but meh -_-
if u hate mbs so much then y don't u just don't use MBS when u play sc2? not that hard
you say that ur opponent will have an advantage because they will have mbs but they shouldnt suffer just because you like having a dumbed down UI. If MBS is meant for the casual player than im sure a "pro" not using mbs will be able to handily defeat the casual player.
if u hate auto mine then y don't u just mine the old way? not that hard
just because you dislike having non a shit-tastic user interface doesn't mean the rest of the population should suffer for it
what makes u think that having a non-shit user interface will make sc2 too easy to play? I think all of you are underestimating human creativity. Competitive SC became popular due to game balance and creative plays, not because it's exciting to watch oov macro out 2 extra tanks than his opponent
That poll is so rigged, I voted No. But it still only says 1 vote for no.
Why did I vote no? I view MBS as an advancement in gaming. SC is archaic, and SC2 is the new generation. I really don't think MBS is going to have such a devastating impact like most of you think.
That's just my personal opinion.
I also love micro, and I love the fact games are now going to be much more micro intensive.
On November 03 2008 06:36 lilpwnyIII wrote: if u hate mbs so much then y don't u just don't use MBS when u play sc2? not that hard
you say that ur opponent will have an advantage because they will have mbs but they shouldnt suffer just because you like having a dumbed down UI. If MBS is meant for the casual player than im sure a "pro" not using mbs will be able to handily defeat the casual player.
if u hate auto mine then y don't u just mine the old way? not that hard
just because you dislike having non a shit-tastic user interface doesn't mean the rest of the population should suffer for it
what makes u think that having a non-shit user interface will make sc2 too easy to play? I think all of you are underestimating human creativity. Competitive SC became popular due to game balance and creative plays, not because it's exciting to watch oov macro out 2 extra tanks than his opponent
Because you play to win, and playing to win would involve using the interface to its fullest extent?
So no, if we think MBS will make the game worse we can't "just ignore it".
On November 03 2008 06:37 Krohm wrote: That poll is so rigged, I voted No. But it still only says 1 vote for no.
Why did I vote no? I view MBS as an advancement in gaming. SC is archaic, and SC2 is the new generation. I really don't think MBS is going to have such a devastating impact like most of you think.
That's just my personal opinion.
I also love micro, and I love the fact games are now going to be much more micro intensive.
Units now autosurround the enemy, take automatically the shortest pathes to engage the enemy in battle, etc etc... no, it isn´t even more Micro intensive now...
But I agree with the "SC2 is the new generation" you know, but men, this automining/autosurrounding/auto-taking-the smartest-choices-in-a-battle thing etc etc etc is just too much... TOO MUCH... I mean, at the end of this, what the fuck are we going to end doing by ourselfs??
On November 03 2008 06:37 Krohm wrote: That poll is so rigged, I voted No. But it still only says 1 vote for no.
Why did I vote no? I view MBS as an advancement in gaming. SC is archaic, and SC2 is the new generation. I really don't think MBS is going to have such a devastating impact like most of you think.
That's just my personal opinion.
I also love micro, and I love the fact games are now going to be much more micro intensive.
I've been thinking, maybe MBS and all the rest of the noob features should be in single player only. There's actually a lot of people who will buy this game for the single player only, possibly even the majority of their sales. putting in MBS/automine there would keep those people happy and boost the review scores, while still keeping the "real" game untouched.
On November 03 2008 06:26 Ki_Do wrote: didnt u read the news? today geeks are tomorrow world leaders
i hope ur joking but knowing how much u love SC u are probably serious. the geeks that become world leaders are the ones that study a lot in school and play games on the side, not the ones that practice SC 8 hours a day.
On November 03 2008 06:26 Ki_Do wrote: didnt u read the news? today geeks are tomorrow world leaders
i hope ur joking but knowing how much u love SC u are probably serious. the geeks that become world leaders are the ones that study a lot in school and play games on the side, not the ones that practice SC 8 hours a day.
I don't know how much Jianfei practices, but it sound like hes smart as hell.
On November 03 2008 06:26 Ki_Do wrote: didnt u read the news? today geeks are tomorrow world leaders
i hope ur joking but knowing how much u love SC u are probably serious. the geeks that become world leaders are the ones that study a lot in school and play games on the side, not the ones that practice SC 8 hours a day.
i cant play sc 8 hours a day anymore, i do physics at university, split my time even there at posting here and studying.
I'd like to see those extra actions spent on better unit positioning / flanking etc., not like throw my army into the battle -> leave it be for a couple of secs -> go back to base to macro it's fine telling computer smth like "constantly produce zealots/immortals in 3:2 ratio" would be too much I don't like autosplit thou
I did not understand the point of your statement whatsoever ^ If you see the pros in SC, they position their units / flank with surgical precision and timing. I dun SCII to be a game where everyone can do that with a simple few clicks.
On November 03 2008 03:46 0xDEADBEEF wrote: It's not crap (it's the Truth™) and most care since these discussions always grow fairly long. Plus, I still haven't been banned yet although I'm the only one here constantly criticizing SC1 (which is actually blasphemy on this site). Which is really kind of amazing, because trolls are banned instantly here, and there are a lot of banned users. It almost makes me think that the mods are actually smart enough to realize that a lot of what I write is true. Almost... I've kinda lost hope that there's someone else here other than delusional fanbois who think that everything about SC1 is amazing, even its obvious flaws.
I actually think you're very wrong but that's not a bannable offense, and banning people for having different opinions from us merely makes us look bad. and I think this is the reasoning for most moderators. don't confuse "im not banned" with "the moderators agree!"..
do what with few simple clicks ? build 6 marines at a time ? what's the big deal ? it isn't some magic spell that solves all your problems instantly. You still have to balance your funds between scv/army production or save some money for expansion (often meaning cutting production in some of your facilities, MBS won't get you through it by itself). The important thing is when and how many units to produce, not how fast can you click barracks one after another.
As far as MBS, automine, etc. allowing players more time to micro and that making up for the lack of things to do. There's only so much you can do micro wise with the group of units you have. It's not like players are now going to magically be able to recode the game while playing in order to use some new spell or something. All it's going to do is make games stale and boring and the differences between players will be almost non existent.
On November 03 2008 08:39 prOxi.swAMi wrote: I'm more worried about the auto-micro of many units than the macro assistance...
Same here. The fact that the lings automatically surround make the game so much easier. The only thing that would be left to do with the game is to make sure that you build the right kinds of units, and then position them correctly.
@IntoTheWow: =>Your thread is hysterical to say the least; =>It belongs to the SC2 forum, not the BW forum (actually it belongs to the garbage can but that's my worthless minority opinion); =>It violates the No MBS Threads rule.
P.S.: I'm the third to have voted No. There should be more but most of those who disagree don't scroll to the end, or even open the thread.
So, uh, has there been anything new in this thread about the subject? >_> I'm getting bored at reading this same stuff again and again already.
Supreme Commander is an interesting game when it comes to the UI, by the way. You've got pretty much everything imaginable to make the physical part easier. Unlimited unit+building selection. Automine isn't even relevant because resources from production buildings go automatically into your storage. You can give commands to buildings that haven't been built yet. You can set up production loops (provided your income stays stable and you're not switching tech, zero base clicking required!). You can create air bridges for transport units to move lots of troops from point a to point b. And of course queue all kinds of actions as much as you want.
If someone's extremely pro-mbs, this could be a great game for you. Think about it. More emphasis on pure strategy! Everything you wanted from SC2 and it's already been made!
In reality, noob to average level games are pretty much decided by optimising economy via build orders, and there aren't really more viable strategies on high level than in something like SC. And thanks to all the things mentioned earlier, games have even less variety once the players know what they're doing. No, this isn't the design route that Blizzard is following with SC2. Different goals justify different features. If we cloned SupCom's UI, no amount of tech decisions would make the game competitively viable because eventually it'll shrink to a select few realistic builds per matchup that everyone executes identically.
Oh, and I bumped the 'no' vote count from 1 to 2. Because I can and the poll isn't very interesting in that state anyway
Starcraft is going to die. The community is going to split.
The Brood war fanboys will consistently criticize the SC2 fanboys, while the SC2 fanboys do not want hostility and will urge that they are totally separate games and there is no need to compare them. The Brood war fanboys will bash every thing as little as a discussion about SC2.
Sound familiar? Counter-strike. I've seen it happen with my very eyes. The communities are so separated that both games just end up dying.
We could do without the sarcastic pictures about "Brood war is to checkers, fast paced, while SC2 is to chess, slow and boring." Or a dog playing the games. It doesn't bolster your point in any way, unless you were going for a bitter, sarcastic humor.
And the generalizations about one group is just unaccurate. No matter what group you're looking at, you'll still have dozens of people from both communities asking: How is this different than Brood war? 60$ for practically the same game? Blizzard are greedy businessmen who only want to extract money from us.
If SC2 will be what it is, we need to start embracing it. Get people ready for the change. Not distance and divide people from both games.
On November 03 2008 07:16 khersai wrote: I'd like to see those extra actions spent on better unit positioning / flanking etc., not like throw my army into the battle -> leave it be for a couple of secs -> go back to base to macro it's fine telling computer smth like "constantly produce zealots/immortals in 3:2 ratio" would be too much I don't like autosplit thou
Yeah, macroing takes a lot of time, so you cant micro at all.
They are many threads about MBS but none that is tackling the particular issue that i'm discussing above....Anyways, so that means you think we are doomed? i don't think that Blizzard truthfully wants to ignore the segment of competitive gamers. They are aware of the form that SC1 has taken in korea has a esport so i'm pretty sure that they want to continue in that direction with SC2. But ....goddamn, they have to know that they'll destroy, or significantly injure competitive SC2 with automation. Whereas if they remove it, or a sizable part of it, they'll be able to keep both casuals and hardcore gamers because like it's been said many times, casuals don't care about MBS or not, and still enjoy manual games. That's why my whole point revolves around the need for better communication between gamers and Blizzard because i think time is running up.
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 03:39 0xDEADBEEF wrote: What Nony wrote here is in contrast to what Artosis wrote in a somewhat recent thread (about the ability to follow the most solid standard build orders and great mechanics being the most important thing). Also, progamers often gamble with BOs, that is definitely true, we see some really crazy openings sometimes which rarely make sense, and it's all because they think they can get away with it (because they hope the opponent doesn't think they'd do that particular BO). It's basically a blind guess, although TL users will call this amazing psychological tricks. TL users might confuse BO gambling with having ingenious strategy (but only if a progamer is doing it).
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.
But really, strategy is incredibly shallow in SC. Tactics, on the other hand, is *theoretically* complex in SC, but in practice it's also quite shallow (but still a lot deeper than strategy) since the high speed forces the players to only do the absolutely most important tasks and ignore a lot of other tasks which *could* give them an advantage *if* they had additional time for them, but since they do not, they are ignored in favor of the more important tasks. Unfortunately though, the most important tasks are rather shallow ("clicky macro" (I like that term) and all related stuff ... all part of mechanics, which the spectators also don't see (another negative aspect)).
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 +
actually mbs and automining will exacerbate this, which is why its bullshit people claim theyll make for more exciting micro based games with attacks all over and shit. with mbs and automining everyone will have near perfect macro, that makes it far far more dangerous to risk the guerilla warfare style of play, because your little attacks get crushed.. you lose. in sc if you run your opponent all over the map his macro suffers because its hard to multitask like that. in sc2 once you get some kind of unit disadvantage you're pretty much fucked because you're not gonna be able to outplay your opponent.. because it doesnt take any effort to play.
, not because theyre incapable of executing it.
And these discussions are always running into a dead end anyway since players will only listen to who is the most skilled player at this very moment. Which is the reason why gameplay discussion on TL is so goddamn awful - players don't use common sense, don't use intelligence, don't use good arguments to discuss gameplay - they just look at how skilled the player who's arguing is at this very moment, not realizing that a lot of gameplay discussion is unrelated to skill (best example: the Blizzard employees, they're all SC noobs, but know a shit ton more about gameplay than any wannabe here from TL)
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 03:39 0xDEADBEEF wrote: What Nony wrote here is in contrast to what Artosis wrote in a somewhat recent thread (about the ability to follow the most solid standard build orders and great mechanics being the most important thing). Also, progamers often gamble with BOs, that is definitely true, we see some really crazy openings sometimes which rarely make sense, and it's all because they think they can get away with it (because they hope the opponent doesn't think they'd do that particular BO). It's basically a blind guess, although TL users will call this amazing psychological tricks. TL users might confuse BO gambling with having ingenious strategy (but only if a progamer is doing it).
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.
But really, strategy is incredibly shallow in SC. Tactics, on the other hand, is *theoretically* complex in SC, but in practice it's also quite shallow (but still a lot deeper than strategy) since the high speed forces the players to only do the absolutely most important tasks and ignore a lot of other tasks which *could* give them an advantage *if* they had additional time for them, but since they do not, they are ignored in favor of the more important tasks. Unfortunately though, the most important tasks are rather shallow ("clicky macro" (I like that term) and all related stuff ... all part of mechanics, which the spectators also don't see (another negative aspect)).
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 +
actually mbs and automining will exacerbate this, which is why its bullshit people claim theyll make for more exciting micro based games with attacks all over and shit. with mbs and automining everyone will have near perfect macro, that makes it far far more dangerous to risk the guerilla warfare style of play, because your little attacks get crushed.. you lose. in sc if you run your opponent all over the map his macro suffers because its hard to multitask like that. in sc2 once you get some kind of unit disadvantage you're pretty much fucked because you're not gonna be able to outplay your opponent.. because it doesnt take any effort to play.
And these discussions are always running into a dead end anyway since players will only listen to who is the most skilled player at this very moment. Which is the reason why gameplay discussion on TL is so goddamn awful - players don't use common sense, don't use intelligence, don't use good arguments to discuss gameplay - they just look at how skilled the player who's arguing is at this very moment, not realizing that a lot of gameplay discussion is unrelated to skill (best example: the Blizzard employees, they're all SC noobs, but know a shit ton more about gameplay than any wannabe here from TL)
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.
players don't use common sense, don't use intelligence, don't use good arguments to discuss gameplay
people use good enough arguments "They like mechanics and doesnt want to lose it" you are not a revolutionary, you are not a genious nor a new Einstein of RTS
On November 03 2008 11:25 Boblion wrote: Idra you should know that Bo gambles =/= "high level" strategy. You are the one always complaining of Dt rush or 2 gates proxies after all .
didnt say the game was balanced, just that strategy is important the players who dont abuse that shit are idiots
they arent actually gambles in the slightest, just frusterating as hell. if t scouts your 2 gate proxy they either have to pull scvs to kill it, you cancel gates and end up ahead anyway if they sent enough scvs, or if they sent too few dont cancel and get a zeal out and then theyre dead, or they go 2 rax and you let them defend it while going fe + cannon, and are ahead. or they just try to bunker and tech and then you have goons out before their factory is done and they die anyway.
and the definition of a dt rush failing is forcing terran to build 5 turrets to take his expansion. sounds ok to me.
moreover, the fact that you can gamble on build orders does not mean strategy is irrelevant. we can play chess and i can try the 4 move checkmate, does that mean its a strategically shallow game?
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.
I dont agree with ITW. I see MBS just as another way to play, i expect more strategy on sc2, and really think most of people here forgets that sc2 is just another game, and only time will tell
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?
you see proxy gateways alot, I don't know what games you've been watching..
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?
you see proxy gateways alot, I don't know what games you've been watching..
Err..not really. I mean, you see them more than most cheeses, but not to the degree where you go "god damn another proxy gate". Most games they just go straight up. The last time I remember seeing a lot of proxy gates within a short period of time was the GSI. In terms of proleague or any starleagues, they are in the drastic minority compared to 'standard' strategies.
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.
When the game comes out there will either be an option to play each game type MBS on/off or they will release a patch after a while that switches removes MBS when all the lamers have had their noob version and have moved on to the next game.
They are many threads about MBS but none that is tackling the particular issue that i'm discussing above....Anyways, so that means you think we are doomed? i don't think that Blizzard truthfully wants to ignore the segment of competitive gamers. They are aware of the form that SC1 has taken in korea has a esport so i'm pretty sure that they want to continue in that direction with SC2. But ....goddamn, they have to know that they'll destroy, or significantly injure competitive SC2 with automation. Whereas if they remove it, or a sizable part of it, they'll be able to keep both casuals and hardcore gamers because like it's been said many times, casuals don't care about MBS or not, and still enjoy manual games. That's why my whole point revolves around the need for better communication between gamers and Blizzard because i think time is running up.
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...
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 03:39 0xDEADBEEF wrote: What Nony wrote here is in contrast to what Artosis wrote in a somewhat recent thread (about the ability to follow the most solid standard build orders and great mechanics being the most important thing). Also, progamers often gamble with BOs, that is definitely true, we see some really crazy openings sometimes which rarely make sense, and it's all because they think they can get away with it (because they hope the opponent doesn't think they'd do that particular BO). It's basically a blind guess, although TL users will call this amazing psychological tricks. TL users might confuse BO gambling with having ingenious strategy (but only if a progamer is doing it).
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.
But really, strategy is incredibly shallow in SC. Tactics, on the other hand, is *theoretically* complex in SC, but in practice it's also quite shallow (but still a lot deeper than strategy) since the high speed forces the players to only do the absolutely most important tasks and ignore a lot of other tasks which *could* give them an advantage *if* they had additional time for them, but since they do not, they are ignored in favor of the more important tasks. Unfortunately though, the most important tasks are rather shallow ("clicky macro" (I like that term) and all related stuff ... all part of mechanics, which the spectators also don't see (another negative aspect)).
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 +
actually mbs and automining will exacerbate this, which is why its bullshit people claim theyll make for more exciting micro based games with attacks all over and shit. with mbs and automining everyone will have near perfect macro, that makes it far far more dangerous to risk the guerilla warfare style of play, because your little attacks get crushed.. you lose. in sc if you run your opponent all over the map his macro suffers because its hard to multitask like that. in sc2 once you get some kind of unit disadvantage you're pretty much fucked because you're not gonna be able to outplay your opponent.. because it doesnt take any effort to play.
And these discussions are always running into a dead end anyway since players will only listen to who is the most skilled player at this very moment. Which is the reason why gameplay discussion on TL is so goddamn awful - players don't use common sense, don't use intelligence, don't use good arguments to discuss gameplay - they just look at how skilled the player who's arguing is at this very moment, not realizing that a lot of gameplay discussion is unrelated to skill (best example: the Blizzard employees, they're all SC noobs, but know a shit ton more about gameplay than any wannabe here from TL)
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.
Word, great post. 0xDEADBEEF will never dare to answere to this though, it's allways the same.
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.
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.
actually id guess proxy gate(s) is used at least 1/4 of the time on 2 player maps. it is significantly less effective on 4 player maps. as for dt drop, who knows. cant count how many freewins bisu has gotten off the build.
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.
ya that's why i curse savior every time i lose to zerg
I think automining may be more detrimental overall, but MBS may not be the best thing in the world for the competitive scene either. I love the article and pictures and voted yes, but I have to admit I would at least want them to wait to change it until after its had some time in beta. Theorycrafting I think would be more than enough reason if we were talking about MBS in SC1, but there are a ridiculous amount of variables in SC2 so I'd at least like for it to be given a shot (partially so I can pretend I have some macro skill for a bit ).
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.
I agree wholly with this article... Casual gamers aren't going to complain about not having MBS! They are D-- lolchobo level anyways. They probably don't even use hotkeys!
On November 03 2008 10:24 LemOn wrote: The Flashy one in just closed thread:
i had this to add though..
They are many threads about MBS but none that is tackling the particular issue that i'm discussing above....Anyways, so that means you think we are doomed? i don't think that Blizzard truthfully wants to ignore the segment of competitive gamers. They are aware of the form that SC1 has taken in korea has a esport so i'm pretty sure that they want to continue in that direction with SC2. But ....goddamn, they have to know that they'll destroy, or significantly injure competitive SC2 with automation. Whereas if they remove it, or a sizable part of it, they'll be able to keep both casuals and hardcore gamers because like it's been said many times, casuals don't care about MBS or not, and still enjoy manual games. That's why my whole point revolves around the need for better communication between gamers and Blizzard because i think time is running up.
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...
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'
Only because it is fom blizzard and has popular brand doesn't mean it will not be massively affected by reviews.
Believe it or not, but majority of people didn't play Starcraft and they don't care about progaming at all. And when a game gets 10/10 on all magazines and gets game of the year awards in them (and the bigger reviews that are affiliaetd with this), than it will sell much better than a 'very solid' 8/10 game, even from Blizzard.
And I don't know what magazines you read, but the ones I do really spend only few days of hardcore gaming of the game before review, but 'playability' is the most important aspect in the review.And what they usually hate is when developers just release old games in new graphics which leads them to slash the final mark down because of it.
You can't keep the game the same, add graphics and say there you go. The best games always bring something extraordinary, something new, something that is worth buying the game just to try the new awesome. (only exception is in Blizzards case D2 here)
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. So from the view of a casual gamer, only another game that brings inovation will yield the highest revenues and will make the most people buy the game. Easy to control interface, AI of units, and new features and 3 campaigns is how SC2 will try to become another bestseller.
Although Starcraft is a bit different because of Korea, and couple million copies will be autosold if the game becomes another major Progaming Title, But I am afraid that Blizzard does believe that the income from broad, non e-sport, public will be higher than that from the hardcore E-sports comunity, who just want another Starcraft with new graphics and a couple new features...
Easy Interface is not definitely a thing that would make reviewers give a 10/10 to sc2.(SUPCOM had and it didnt have 10-10)
It needs to revolutionize in another way, not this "revolution nine" that this pro-gameplay punishment-mbs-shit represents to please that motherfuckers from gayspy, igayn and gayspot its only needed a nice sp mode with very very original missions
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.
I know it is...which is why Blizzard doesn't make a big deal about this.
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.
There have been games that are "same old, same old" that have been successful with players and reviewers alike. Team Fortress 2 is a recent example of that. Red Alert 2, the first two Age of Empires games, Knights of the Old Republic, Baldur's Gate II, and many other games offered fundamentally unoriginal gameplay, but were fantastically received in both sales numbers and review scores. Innovation can help, but is certainly not a requirement to making a successful game (and is a shot in the dark, since not all innovations take off).
On November 03 2008 22:51 Archaic wrote: I agree wholly with this article... Casual gamers aren't going to complain about not having MBS! They are D-- lolchobo level anyways. They probably don't even use hotkeys!
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.
On November 03 2008 22:51 Archaic wrote: I agree wholly with this article... Casual gamers aren't going to complain about not having MBS! They are D-- lolchobo level anyways. They probably don't even use hotkeys!
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.
I actually like the idea of not being able to hotkey multiple buildings but being able to select them, as I'm sure I've said before when you've brought it up, but how do you implement it?
Do you just make it so that hotkeying them when you have 10 gates selected has no effect? Do you make it so that if you select 10 gates, and then hotkey them, you can't build from them (but perhaps rally)? How do you do it without being unintuitive?
On November 03 2008 22:51 Archaic wrote: I agree wholly with this article... Casual gamers aren't going to complain about not having MBS! They are D-- lolchobo level anyways. They probably don't even use hotkeys!
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.
I actually like the idea of not being able to hotkey multiple buildings but being able to select them, as I'm sure I've said before when you've brought it up, but how do you implement it?
Do you just make it so that hotkeying them when you have 10 gates selected has no effect? Do you make it so that if you select 10 gates, and then hotkey them, you can't build from them (but perhaps rally)? How do you do it without being unintuitive?
I don't know how to solve the unintuitiveness issuse, really. I hope there are some UI traits that casuals would deem as unintuitive besides that so that it isn't that much of a put-off.
What's the most important thing is Blizzard's implementing drag-selection for buildings (something I've mentioned in other threads):
Draw a selection box - select units (unless there are only buildings within the box). Hold Ctrl + draw a box - select buildings (unless there are only units within the box).
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.
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.
Have you ever visited the official Battle.net forums? SC2Armory? Starfeeder?
There are many people who want MBS. TL.net is an island amids the sea of casual players.
ive visited these 3 sites but im having a hard time finding specifically pro-MBS comments. Most ppl are talking about unit abilities. if you could post links here, that would be cool. im really curious.
On November 03 2008 03:39 0xDEADBEEF wrote: What Nony wrote here is in contrast to what Artosis wrote in a somewhat recent thread (about the ability to follow the most solid standard build orders and great mechanics being the most important thing). Also, progamers often gamble with BOs, that is definitely true, we see some really crazy openings sometimes which rarely make sense, and it's all because they think they can get away with it (because they hope the opponent doesn't think they'd do that particular BO). It's basically a blind guess, although TL users will call this amazing psychological tricks. TL users might confuse BO gambling with having ingenious strategy (but only if a progamer is doing it).
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.
But really, strategy is incredibly shallow in SC. Tactics, on the other hand, is *theoretically* complex in SC, but in practice it's also quite shallow (but still a lot deeper than strategy) since the high speed forces the players to only do the absolutely most important tasks and ignore a lot of other tasks which *could* give them an advantage *if* they had additional time for them, but since they do not, they are ignored in favor of the more important tasks. Unfortunately though, the most important tasks are rather shallow ("clicky macro" (I like that term) and all related stuff ... all part of mechanics, which the spectators also don't see (another negative aspect)).
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 +
actually mbs and automining will exacerbate this, which is why its bullshit people claim theyll make for more exciting micro based games with attacks all over and shit. with mbs and automining everyone will have near perfect macro, that makes it far far more dangerous to risk the guerilla warfare style of play, because your little attacks get crushed.. you lose. in sc if you run your opponent all over the map his macro suffers because its hard to multitask like that. in sc2 once you get some kind of unit disadvantage you're pretty much fucked because you're not gonna be able to outplay your opponent.. because it doesnt take any effort to play.
, not because theyre incapable of executing it.
And these discussions are always running into a dead end anyway since players will only listen to who is the most skilled player at this very moment. Which is the reason why gameplay discussion on TL is so goddamn awful - players don't use common sense, don't use intelligence, don't use good arguments to discuss gameplay - they just look at how skilled the player who's arguing is at this very moment, not realizing that a lot of gameplay discussion is unrelated to skill (best example: the Blizzard employees, they're all SC noobs, but know a shit ton more about gameplay than any wannabe here from TL)
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.
Word, great post. 0xDEADBEEF will never dare to answere to this though, it's allways the same.
Exactly. I waste enough time trying to educate stupid SC players here anyway. Since I just watched Savior's last proleague game (vs. TT), I can give you another example why I am getting sick and bored of these discussions about obvious crap which TL denies. Watch the game mentioned above, and see a reaver doing full (> 80) damage to a bunch of slowhydras and speedhydras which are moving directly away from the reaver. Since a few of them died, it's very likely the initial hit did 100% damage and the lesser splash damage was enough to kill the rest (hydras have 80 HP in case you didn't know). Sorry I can't be assed to provide you with the exact MM:SS count but you'll see it, guaranteed) Some here at TL said I was wrong, and said that they'd do either 50% damage (always!) or simply "always less damage to moving targets" (hi IdrA). I said that everything can happen (including full or no damage), and what exactly happens is not controllable by the player (i.e. it's GODDAMN LUCK). Of course, that made TL angry, the well-respected posters said I was wrong, and the mob believed the well-respected posters. Great. So now that that's out of the way, I can guarantee you that they'll still not believe me although they can see it for themselves. They'll now delude themselves by inventing excuses, and 80% of TL will believe *them* instead of me. I have seen millions of scarabs/mines killing billions of units in these 10 years, I can tell you reavers, scarabs and mines are *not predictable*, it's quite a big luck element actually. But TL deludes themselves and thinks it's somehow predictable and if something out of the normal happens (e.g. a reaver doing full dmg or a unit getting no dmg) they'll just somehow attribute it to player skill, because it would be an affront to their godlike skillful game to think otherwise. Well, I tell you what, Britney Spears makes shitty music too but it's loved by so many. That SC1 is so big in Korea doesn't mean it's a perfect game. It's flawed, but the flaws aren't fixed (Blizz wouldn't want to break any more) and the fans think they're either features or not really flaws although they are. So really, is it worth the effort? No. The majority of current SC players are stupid fanboys, period. And no amount of reasoning including examples and long arguments are going to change that. Of course, you don't need to know these details to play well. You just need (roughly said) a) the best/most solid build orders on every map for every matchup, b) a sense of timing, c) speeeeeeeeeed/mechanics/clicky macro, d) some tiny 14 y/o balls in order to sometimes do a 5pool or hidden expo or shit like that which is totally amaaaaazing (if a progamer does it; if not, it's stupid). All in all, it's things like that which prove that some well-respected TL users doesn't really know a lot about game details, and are thus very unlikely to provide good arguments in gameplay discussions, whether they can play well or not. Now flame on, kids. It's really my last post here.
It is true scarabs sometimes do no damage when a unit is running away and the scarab has a long way to travel. You know why that is? Because of poor 'control.'
Pros control+click the approximate location where they want the Reaver to aim/focus.
Wow, I cleared that up in about 3 sentences, huzzah.
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.
Have you ever visited the official Battle.net forums? SC2Armory? Starfeeder?
There are many people who want MBS. TL.net is an island amids the sea of casual players.
Seriously, i don't know where you found all these pro-MBS comments, i went to these 3 sites, did a keyword search and couldnt find anything.
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.
Have you ever visited the official Battle.net forums? SC2Armory? Starfeeder?
There are many people who want MBS. TL.net is an island amids the sea of casual players.
Seriously, i don't know where you found all these pro-MBS comments, i went to these 3 sites, did a keyword search and couldnt find anything.
MBS threads are scarce there, but ask any TL.netter, really...
On November 03 2008 03:39 0xDEADBEEF wrote: What Nony wrote here is in contrast to what Artosis wrote in a somewhat recent thread (about the ability to follow the most solid standard build orders and great mechanics being the most important thing). Also, progamers often gamble with BOs, that is definitely true, we see some really crazy openings sometimes which rarely make sense, and it's all because they think they can get away with it (because they hope the opponent doesn't think they'd do that particular BO). It's basically a blind guess, although TL users will call this amazing psychological tricks. TL users might confuse BO gambling with having ingenious strategy (but only if a progamer is doing it).
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.
But really, strategy is incredibly shallow in SC. Tactics, on the other hand, is *theoretically* complex in SC, but in practice it's also quite shallow (but still a lot deeper than strategy) since the high speed forces the players to only do the absolutely most important tasks and ignore a lot of other tasks which *could* give them an advantage *if* they had additional time for them, but since they do not, they are ignored in favor of the more important tasks. Unfortunately though, the most important tasks are rather shallow ("clicky macro" (I like that term) and all related stuff ... all part of mechanics, which the spectators also don't see (another negative aspect)).
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 +
actually mbs and automining will exacerbate this, which is why its bullshit people claim theyll make for more exciting micro based games with attacks all over and shit. with mbs and automining everyone will have near perfect macro, that makes it far far more dangerous to risk the guerilla warfare style of play, because your little attacks get crushed.. you lose. in sc if you run your opponent all over the map his macro suffers because its hard to multitask like that. in sc2 once you get some kind of unit disadvantage you're pretty much fucked because you're not gonna be able to outplay your opponent.. because it doesnt take any effort to play.
, not because theyre incapable of executing it.
And these discussions are always running into a dead end anyway since players will only listen to who is the most skilled player at this very moment. Which is the reason why gameplay discussion on TL is so goddamn awful - players don't use common sense, don't use intelligence, don't use good arguments to discuss gameplay - they just look at how skilled the player who's arguing is at this very moment, not realizing that a lot of gameplay discussion is unrelated to skill (best example: the Blizzard employees, they're all SC noobs, but know a shit ton more about gameplay than any wannabe here from TL)
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.
Word, great post. 0xDEADBEEF will never dare to answere to this though, it's allways the same.
Exactly. I waste enough time trying to educate stupid SC players here anyway. Since I just watched Savior's last proleague game (vs. TT), I can give you another example why I am getting sick and bored of these discussions about obvious crap which TL denies. Watch the game mentioned above, and see a reaver doing full (> 80) damage to a bunch of slowhydras and speedhydras which are moving directly away from the reaver. Since a few of them died, it's very likely the initial hit did 100% damage and the lesser splash damage was enough to kill the rest (hydras have 80 HP in case you didn't know). Sorry I can't be assed to provide you with the exact MM:SS count but you'll see it, guaranteed) Some here at TL said I was wrong, and said that they'd do either 50% damage (always!) or simply "always less damage to moving targets" (hi IdrA). I said that everything can happen (including full or no damage), and what exactly happens is not controllable by the player (i.e. it's GODDAMN LUCK). Of course, that made TL angry, the well-respected posters said I was wrong, and the mob believed the well-respected posters. Great. So now that that's out of the way, I can guarantee you that they'll still not believe me although they can see it for themselves. They'll now delude themselves by inventing excuses, and 80% of TL will believe *them* instead of me. I have seen millions of scarabs/mines killing billions of units in these 10 years, I can tell you reavers, scarabs and mines are *not predictable*, it's quite a big luck element actually. But TL deludes themselves and thinks it's somehow predictable and if something out of the normal happens (e.g. a reaver doing full dmg or a unit getting no dmg) they'll just somehow attribute it to player skill, because it would be an affront to their godlike skillful game to think otherwise. Well, I tell you what, Britney Spears makes shitty music too but it's loved by so many. That SC1 is so big in Korea doesn't mean it's a perfect game. It's flawed, but the flaws aren't fixed (Blizz wouldn't want to break any more) and the fans think they're either features or not really flaws although they are. So really, is it worth the effort? No. The majority of current SC players are stupid fanboys, period. And no amount of reasoning including examples and long arguments are going to change that. Of course, you don't need to know these details to play well. You just need (roughly said) a) the best/most solid build orders on every map for every matchup, b) a sense of timing, c) speeeeeeeeeed/mechanics/clicky macro, d) some tiny 14 y/o balls in order to sometimes do a 5pool or hidden expo or shit like that which is totally amaaaaazing (if a progamer does it; if not, it's stupid). All in all, it's things like that which prove that some well-respected TL users doesn't really know a lot about game details, and are thus very unlikely to provide good arguments in gameplay discussions, whether they can play well or not. Now flame on, kids. It's really my last post here.
Why the fuck are you even here? Why the fuck do you even watch SC? Why do you even fucking care? I'm glad you're gone.
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.
Have you ever visited the official Battle.net forums? SC2Armory? Starfeeder?
There are many people who want MBS. TL.net is an island amids the sea of casual players.
Seriously, i don't know where you found all these pro-MBS comments, i went to these 3 sites, did a keyword search and couldnt find anything.
MBS threads are scarce there, but ask any TL.netter, really...
Dude, wtf;
im posting that 99% of TL.net is against MBS.
you reply ; that is true, but TL is just an island and that many other sites are in fact a sea of casuals that are pro-MBS. you name 3 sites.
my reply ; i visited these 3 sites but couldnt find anything.
you reply; MBS threads are scarce there but ask any TL.netter.
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.
Have you ever visited the official Battle.net forums? SC2Armory? Starfeeder?
There are many people who want MBS. TL.net is an island amids the sea of casual players.
Seriously, i don't know where you found all these pro-MBS comments, i went to these 3 sites, did a keyword search and couldnt find anything.
MBS threads are scarce there, but ask any TL.netter, really...
Dude, wtf;
im posting that 99% of TL.net is against MBS.
you reply ; that is true, but TL is just an island and that many other sites are in fact a sea of casuals that are pro-MBS. you name 3 sites.
my reply ; i visited these 3 sites but couldnt find anything.
you reply; MBS threads are scarce there but ask any TL.netter.
me now ; wtf ?
The phrase "Guys, the community is NOT divided." was rather vague. I thought you meant the whole SC community and not just TL.net.
TL.net is not a good representation of what the whole community thinks of MBS and other such UI "improvements." There is a divide.
anyways..it seems like pro-MBS people just went away..hiding.. maybe they realized that they didnt have a clue. it seems that 99% of those who are currently, and actively expressing their opinions are now anti-MBS. So i'll maintain my theory that the community is not divided and that we pretty much are all against it. I hope this will make Blizzard's decision easier.
i got one last thing to say before stop postin in mbs threads, For-ever
if sc2 get mbs and automine and all these automatizations, then sc3 ill be even worse, and sc4 too and sc5 too, its a tumor, i see the death of this franchise in the future. So i want everybody that support automatizations and less macro, to die asap, and take the blizz members responsible for this with them , to hell. gg no re/bw ftw
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.
On November 03 2008 03:39 0xDEADBEEF wrote: What Nony wrote here is in contrast to what Artosis wrote in a somewhat recent thread (about the ability to follow the most solid standard build orders and great mechanics being the most important thing). Also, progamers often gamble with BOs, that is definitely true, we see some really crazy openings sometimes which rarely make sense, and it's all because they think they can get away with it (because they hope the opponent doesn't think they'd do that particular BO). It's basically a blind guess, although TL users will call this amazing psychological tricks. TL users might confuse BO gambling with having ingenious strategy (but only if a progamer is doing it).
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.
But really, strategy is incredibly shallow in SC. Tactics, on the other hand, is *theoretically* complex in SC, but in practice it's also quite shallow (but still a lot deeper than strategy) since the high speed forces the players to only do the absolutely most important tasks and ignore a lot of other tasks which *could* give them an advantage *if* they had additional time for them, but since they do not, they are ignored in favor of the more important tasks. Unfortunately though, the most important tasks are rather shallow ("clicky macro" (I like that term) and all related stuff ... all part of mechanics, which the spectators also don't see (another negative aspect)).
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 +
actually mbs and automining will exacerbate this, which is why its bullshit people claim theyll make for more exciting micro based games with attacks all over and shit. with mbs and automining everyone will have near perfect macro, that makes it far far more dangerous to risk the guerilla warfare style of play, because your little attacks get crushed.. you lose. in sc if you run your opponent all over the map his macro suffers because its hard to multitask like that. in sc2 once you get some kind of unit disadvantage you're pretty much fucked because you're not gonna be able to outplay your opponent.. because it doesnt take any effort to play.
, not because theyre incapable of executing it.
And these discussions are always running into a dead end anyway since players will only listen to who is the most skilled player at this very moment. Which is the reason why gameplay discussion on TL is so goddamn awful - players don't use common sense, don't use intelligence, don't use good arguments to discuss gameplay - they just look at how skilled the player who's arguing is at this very moment, not realizing that a lot of gameplay discussion is unrelated to skill (best example: the Blizzard employees, they're all SC noobs, but know a shit ton more about gameplay than any wannabe here from TL)
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.
Word, great post. 0xDEADBEEF will never dare to answere to this though, it's allways the same.
Exactly. I waste enough time trying to educate stupid SC players here anyway. Since I just watched Savior's last proleague game (vs. TT), I can give you another example why I am getting sick and bored of these discussions about obvious crap which TL denies. Watch the game mentioned above, and see a reaver doing full (> 80) damage to a bunch of slowhydras and speedhydras which are moving directly away from the reaver. Since a few of them died, it's very likely the initial hit did 100% damage and the lesser splash damage was enough to kill the rest (hydras have 80 HP in case you didn't know). Sorry I can't be assed to provide you with the exact MM:SS count but you'll see it, guaranteed) Some here at TL said I was wrong, and said that they'd do either 50% damage (always!) or simply "always less damage to moving targets" (hi IdrA). I said that everything can happen (including full or no damage), and what exactly happens is not controllable by the player (i.e. it's GODDAMN LUCK). Of course, that made TL angry, the well-respected posters said I was wrong, and the mob believed the well-respected posters. Great. So now that that's out of the way, I can guarantee you that they'll still not believe me although they can see it for themselves. They'll now delude themselves by inventing excuses, and 80% of TL will believe *them* instead of me. I have seen millions of scarabs/mines killing billions of units in these 10 years, I can tell you reavers, scarabs and mines are *not predictable*, it's quite a big luck element actually. But TL deludes themselves and thinks it's somehow predictable and if something out of the normal happens (e.g. a reaver doing full dmg or a unit getting no dmg) they'll just somehow attribute it to player skill, because it would be an affront to their godlike skillful game to think otherwise. Well, I tell you what, Britney Spears makes shitty music too but it's loved by so many. That SC1 is so big in Korea doesn't mean it's a perfect game. It's flawed, but the flaws aren't fixed (Blizz wouldn't want to break any more) and the fans think they're either features or not really flaws although they are. So really, is it worth the effort? No. The majority of current SC players are stupid fanboys, period. And no amount of reasoning including examples and long arguments are going to change that. Of course, you don't need to know these details to play well. You just need (roughly said) a) the best/most solid build orders on every map for every matchup, b) a sense of timing, c) speeeeeeeeeed/mechanics/clicky macro, d) some tiny 14 y/o balls in order to sometimes do a 5pool or hidden expo or shit like that which is totally amaaaaazing (if a progamer does it; if not, it's stupid). All in all, it's things like that which prove that some well-respected TL users doesn't really know a lot about game details, and are thus very unlikely to provide good arguments in gameplay discussions, whether they can play well or not. Now flame on, kids. It's really my last post here.
If you weren't so offensive and condescending in this post, there'd be parts of it that I could agree with you on.. But mob mentality is not unique to TL.net, it will happen to virtually any big forum (or at least I am yet to find one without it).
On November 04 2008 05:37 TheFlashyOne wrote: anyways..it seems like pro-MBS people just went away..hiding.. maybe they realized that they didnt have a clue. it seems that 99% of those who are currently, and actively expressing their opinions are now anti-MBS. So i'll maintain my theory that the community is not divided and that we pretty much are all against it. I hope this will make Blizzard's decision easier.
dude, I'm against MBS, but this "theory" you are maintaining that 99% of the SC community is against it is just plain wrong... in fact it's downright idiotic. I'd stop spewing that unless you want to look like a retard..
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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'm not totally in disagreement with you, but I have to say that is what betas are for lol. Theres no better time in fact, because its hard to know how many of their changes will work in the aggregate player population. And this isn't just in theory either - Blizzard in particular is known for not being afraid of making major changes during beta. They have no obligations to their beta populace to have the game be stable or balanced or anything - its the beta players that have the obligation to prove that the game IS unstable or unbalanced. That said, I wouldn't exactly be upset if MBS was out before beta, lol.
On November 04 2008 19:21 TheFlashyOne wrote: 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.
Now I think you're in the same boat as me. I have faith in Blizzard that if its broken, it will be fixed. If they want this game to be an e-sport (which their dedicated e-sports team would argue is the case) they will do whatever is necessary to achieve that. If contrary to all our common knowledge, it still manages to be a competitive game, that's great too. I have total confidence in the end result, even if I'm not sure of that path Blizzard takes there.
I'm not totally in disagreement with you, but I have to say that is what betas are for lol. Theres no better time in fact, because its hard to know how many of their changes will work in the aggregate player population. And this isn't just in theory either - Blizzard in particular is known for not being afraid of making major changes during beta. They have no obligations to their beta populace to have the game be stable or balanced or anything - its the beta players that have the obligation to prove that the game IS unstable or unbalanced. That said, I wouldn't exactly be upset if MBS was out before beta, lol.
willing or not major changes are inconvenient, and when it is this obvious that something is bad theres no need to test it.
I'm not totally in disagreement with you, but I have to say that is what betas are for lol. Theres no better time in fact, because its hard to know how many of their changes will work in the aggregate player population. And this isn't just in theory either - Blizzard in particular is known for not being afraid of making major changes during beta. They have no obligations to their beta populace to have the game be stable or balanced or anything - its the beta players that have the obligation to prove that the game IS unstable or unbalanced. That said, I wouldn't exactly be upset if MBS was out before beta, lol.
willing or not major changes are inconvenient, and when it is this obvious that something is bad theres no need to test it.
Thats kinda like saying that because of the polls for Obama, we shouldn't actually hold the election. Its ridiculously likely that the popular consensus will hold true and the actual voting will have been a waste of time and money, but its still worth doing.
In SC2, it will reaffirm suspicions to put that theory and small scale testing (polling) to an extended and expanded beta-style test (election day)
I'm not totally in disagreement with you, but I have to say that is what betas are for lol. Theres no better time in fact, because its hard to know how many of their changes will work in the aggregate player population. And this isn't just in theory either - Blizzard in particular is known for not being afraid of making major changes during beta. They have no obligations to their beta populace to have the game be stable or balanced or anything - its the beta players that have the obligation to prove that the game IS unstable or unbalanced. That said, I wouldn't exactly be upset if MBS was out before beta, lol.
willing or not major changes are inconvenient, and when it is this obvious that something is bad theres no need to test it.
Thats kinda like saying that because of the polls for Obama, we shouldn't actually hold the election. Its ridiculously likely that the popular consensus will hold true and the actual voting will have been a waste of time and money, but its still worth doing.
In SC2, it will reaffirm suspicions to put that theory and small scale testing (polling) to an extended and expanded beta-style test (election day)
no, its like saying every informed, intelligent person believes obama will be a significantly better president so we should not let mccain take power for a few months, just to try it out.
I'm not totally in disagreement with you, but I have to say that is what betas are for lol. Theres no better time in fact, because its hard to know how many of their changes will work in the aggregate player population. And this isn't just in theory either - Blizzard in particular is known for not being afraid of making major changes during beta. They have no obligations to their beta populace to have the game be stable or balanced or anything - its the beta players that have the obligation to prove that the game IS unstable or unbalanced. That said, I wouldn't exactly be upset if MBS was out before beta, lol.
willing or not major changes are inconvenient, and when it is this obvious that something is bad theres no need to test it.
Thats kinda like saying that because of the polls for Obama, we shouldn't actually hold the election. Its ridiculously likely that the popular consensus will hold true and the actual voting will have been a waste of time and money, but its still worth doing.
In SC2, it will reaffirm suspicions to put that theory and small scale testing (polling) to an extended and expanded beta-style test (election day)
no, its like saying every informed, intelligent person believes obama will be a significantly better president so we should not let mccain take power for a few months, just to try it out.
I think a lot of the more vocal supporters (people outside the campaign) actually would say that, lol. The most intelligent for sure wouldn't, but those two things don't always coincide (before anyone gets mad - both sides have these types; I'm not going to willingly turn an already volatile MBS thread into a dangerously scary hybrid poltical/MBS thread). And I think a beta is a lot more like a presidential campaign than a few months of the actual presidency.
So I think my original analogy was actually more accurate but I also feel like this is a rather stupid and pointless facet of the issue for me to be arguing in the first place so I'll drop it.
According to the poll we all agree with the article, though I'd say not all, at least not me breathe SC:BW. Nowdays i only play casually and rarely, but still the thing that had and has me coming to SC:BW all this years is the challenging gameplay that is easy to learn, hard to master!
I think we all love a game where we can be challanged in every mean: strategicly, tacticly, mentally and physicly and SC:BW provides that to the fullest potential!
The thing about MBS though is that I am prepared to give it a brake if things like auto-mine, multiple rally-points and smart-casting is removed!
I think SC2 has enough potential to cover-up for MBS easyness as long as the previosly mentioned options I mentioned are removed! One thing is to make 1 sacrifice to make the game easier(such as MBS), but another when there are a lot options/mechanics that make the game easier(smart-cast, auto-mine, etc...)!
I think the focus should be made towards reaching out to the SC2 developers to remove the other automations rather than MBS.
With other automations removed and MBS in the game, the core skill celling will stay, but it will make the action faster for casual players who can now build units faster, while better players will still have an advantage through mechanics like warp-in, queens laying additional eggs for zerg and things like that!
Overall though the devs will need to make a sacrifice from the easy game and remove some of the stuff, just as they made huge sacrifice by removing all of the skill celling that was in SC:BW!
On November 04 2008 21:06 SlickR12345 wrote: According to the poll we all agree with the article, though I'd say not all, at least not me breathe SC:BW. Nowdays i only play casually and rarely, but still the thing that had and has me coming to SC:BW all this years is the challenging gameplay that is easy to learn, hard to master!
I think we all love a game where we can be challanged in every mean: strategicly, tacticly, mentally and physicly and SC:BW provides that to the fullest potential!
The thing about MBS though is that I am prepared to give it a brake if things like auto-mine, multiple rally-points and smart-casting is removed!
I think SC2 has enough potential to cover-up for MBS easyness as long as the previosly mentioned options I mentioned are removed! One thing is to make 1 sacrifice to make the game easier(such as MBS), but another when there are a lot options/mechanics that make the game easier(smart-cast, auto-mine, etc...)!
I think the focus should be made towards reaching out to the SC2 developers to remove the other automations rather than MBS.
With other automations removed and MBS in the game, the core skill celling will stay, but it will make the action faster for casual players who can now build units faster, while better players will still have an advantage through mechanics like warp-in, queens laying additional eggs for zerg and things like that!
Overall though the devs will need to make a sacrifice from the easy game and remove some of the stuff, just as they made huge sacrifice by removing all of the skill celling that was in SC:BW!
This game is all about how many units you have and how you use them. If you overextend your micro, your macro will be flawed. How flawed it will be depends on how good the player is. There is nothing boring about macro.
On November 04 2008 23:00 Imagination wrote: i dont know if anybody has suggested this, cause i dont read the sc2 forums
but why not just have
Battle.net servers (mbs) for the newbies and people who just wanna chillout and play $$$$$$FASTEST MAP EVER POSSIBLE NO RUSH 50MIN $$$$$
Ladder Battle.net servers (no mbs and whatever other bullshit they put)
It's been suggested before, quite often actually.
What would Blizzard balance the game for? There are still plenty of competitive players who DO WANT those automations, mainly to-be-ex-WC3 players who are going to switch to SC2.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/3152/ihassctwone0.png)
![[image loading]](http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/6569/aazn2.png)
![[image loading]](http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/3905/keepsyoufitbe1.png)
![[image loading]](http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/2815/new5080008ey4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/2683/3000rg9.png)
)
![[image loading]](http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/1312/protosskeyboardsmul4.jpg)
