|
On September 11 2007 02:42 NonY[rC] wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2007 01:59 Klockan3 wrote:I find it funny that there are people here that actually believes that Blizzard will take out MBS if they scream enough, theres no chance they will do it, simple as that. Quoting karune here:
Will players be able to select multiple buildings simultaneously?
We are directing much attention to polishing and improving the user interface. On that note, players will definitely be able to select and build from multiple buildings at the same time. You cannot drag-select buildings, but you can shift-click on them and add them to a control-group for ease of unit production.
Will workers auto-gather resources if the rally point is set to a mineral node or a geyser?
Of course.
Will we be able to select more than 12 units at the same time?
Currently, unit selection is unlimited, but this may change with further development and testing.
As you see, MBS and autogather were defenitely in, no doubt at all in the answers. While at the same time you can see that the unit selection limit wasnt finalised wich is seen by the "It may change with further development and testing". You'll have to find someone better to quote than Karune. He's not exactly high up in the process of making SC2...
Karune is the voice of Blizzard. Whether he has a say in making SCII (which he probably doesn't) is irrelevant. He gets the questions, catalogues them (I guess. What else does he get paid for?) and gives them over to dev team. The latter answer and send him back to the SC2 forum to report to the fanbase. Dismissing Karune's answers is pretty much equivalent to dismissing info on the SCII site - it may change, but that's where Bliz stands at the moment.
P.S. I didn't see people questioning Karune, when he said Firebats were back in...
|
8751 Posts
If you've ever played WoW for a period of time and followed the blue posts (posts by Blizzard employees) for any period of time, then you'd know that they're far less than 100% reliable. And they've messed up on major game issues, not just minor ones.
|
I'm all in with the MBS/automining feature. Why not? I don't think it will noobify the game at all.
|
On September 11 2007 02:57 NonY[rC] wrote:
If you've ever played WoW for a period of time and followed the blue posts (posts by Blizzard employees) for any period of time, then you'd know that they're far less than 100% reliable. And they've messed up on major game issues, not just minor ones.
Thats different though, these are official stickied posts with specifically chosen questions.
I doubt that Karune just takes a bunch of questions and answers them with his limited knowledge, instead he must go through the dev team to see whats ok to say and what to say.
Notice that on all other questions he says that its open to change, on these matters its an 100% accurate answer wich is "YES", not "Yes, but we might change it" or "probably" or "It could use some tweaking" or "We arent sure yet" but just a pure affirmative of them having autogather and MBS in the game, if that werent the case Karune wouldnt be allowed to say it that clear.
Its not a random answer to a random post on the blizz forum, its the official Q&A, so there arent any slip ups here especially since he did specifically say that unlimited selection was up in the air while the others were defenitely in, making a big difference in how he said it. If he just said "You are able to select and produce from multiple buildings" then it would be another matter, but now he said "You will defenitely be able to select and produce from multiple buildings".
|
On September 09 2007 12:34 LonelyMargarita wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2007 11:02 clizz wrote:
I think that an important point is being missed here. Even the best starcraft players in the world do not play close to an optimal level. Not even close. At times, pros use control groups of up to 12 units. If they had the time, don't you think they would control each unit individually? MBS will free up some APM to do other, more interesting, things. No, the thing YOU are missing is that making the game so easy that it's possible to play flawlessly is HORRIBLE for a game. Baseball would suck if every team had a batter that batted 1.000. Not only that, but that's simply not fun, individually controlling every single unit all the time: that's WC3, and it's slower paced. Starcraft is fun because you're constantly overwhelmed with things, and constantly jumping between macro and micro, while making decisions as to how to balance your time most efficiently. Not only is the game not as competitive when you don't have this trade off, it's simply not as fun.
The problem with War3 isn't that you can control individual units often. I think it's mostly the lack of being able to kill units, heroes being overly important, and the amount of running away.
In SC, when it's 8 or 10 zergling vs 2 marines and some SCVs, is it suddenly less fun? Even when you are moving individual marines and zerglings, it's still fast paced, exciting, and fun. When you are attacking drone lines with a shuttle, a goon, and a reaver, is it boring?
When it takes forever to kill units, and you can nearly always run away... then the game loses its fun to me.
Put this in starcraft terms, and once the game gets to mid-game, you are suddenly having to control large numbers of units and your bases. Nobody can do both perfectly in BW, and I just don't think MBS is going to make it so that 400 APM players are going to sit around twiddling their thumbs. Like I said before, it's just going to call for more exact play. More exact play means more demanding, and I think that means more skill needed (albeit, the focus is shifted a little from one area to another compared to the non-MBS BW).
|
I also don't think it's terrible to implement some of the old suggestions if MBS just screams "bad" after beta testing:
Limit MBS to 3 to 5 buildings.
Have it so that you build units individually...
5dddssstt or whatnot.
|
I think 5dddssstt would make the game much easier than being forced to produce all the same unit.
|
On September 09 2007 16:51 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2007 14:56 1esu wrote:On September 09 2007 11:01 MyLostTemple wrote:
How do easy interfaces help encourage esports? They don't.
...
Many people thought that Counter strike wouldn't be a successful esport when it was in it's very early stages because players could die so fast and had to wait until the end of the round to respawn. As it turns out people LOVE watching this game and LOVE playing this game.
It's ironic that you use a prime example of a game that has succeeded as an e-sport in part BECAUSE it has an 'easy interface'. Virtually every action in CS can be accomplished in a single mouseclick or keystroke, or bound to a single keystroke in the case of buying stuff at the beginning of a round. The challenge is in the movement, the aiming, the strategies, and the teamwork, to name four things. It's in a large part because of this 'easy interface' that CS has such a ginormous competitive community, which in turn fuels its professional status. Sure, it's an FPS and SC is an RTS, but the principle remains the same: an interface should allow players to complete any game action in as few keystrokes/clicks as possible. It's for this reason that I support the idea in the 'MBS solutions' thread to keep MBS, but make it '5zzzzz' instead of '5z', as for every zealot I want I only have to click 'z' (after I selected my gates with '5'). Another example of a popular e-sports game that has an easy interface is KartRider. Granted, the fact that it's even more popular in Korea than SC has something to do with its e-sports status, but it takes the up, down, left, right, and shift keys and makes a game that's really easy to get into, but ridiculously difficult to master. Oh, and before anyone brings up this particular genre, the counter-example among fighting games would be Super Smash Bros. Melee. IMO MBS is sort of like Auto-aim. Although this might be a poor example, given that I don't play FPS  I think most serious - PC - FPSers look down on auto-aim no? I don't like the idea of having to press go 5zzzz because then how will you know if you've filled up all your gateways or not (or does the display jump to the next one everytime you build)? Oh and kart rider has a somewhat different demographic.. namely everyone. Isn't the type of game that anyone can play, ie you play it for 15 minutes during coffee break or after you get home from first grade school.
Yeah, if 5zzzz is put in, then there needs to be a 100% clear way to see what you are doing. As I think on it, I sort of like this method b/c it frees up more control hotkeys while still requiring some speed. Hmmm.
An interesting viewpoint for me was the casual gamer friend viewpoint: I was just talking to two of my casual SC gamer friends, and one said MBS is an absolute need in SC2 b/c UI getting in the way of strategy is bad. He was one who purposely avoided playing BW competitively b/c he was frustrated that he felt "rushed", so no surprise on his comment. The other thought about it and had the comment that building individually (non-MBS) allows more precision and was possibly better just for that one fact. But then he thought on it more and said the benefits of MBS outweigh the negatives for him.
Anyway, the OP has a point that new blood is necessary to keep SC2 going for a long time. I started playing SC when I was what... 24? It's obviously the younger generation that had the time to continue to play the game and keep it going for such a long time. Like it or not, the younger generation has to have enough fluff or whatever to get them into the game. But hopefully Blizzard can keep the game highly competitive despite any newb friendly features. Serious players may be upset if their skillset doesn't translate perfectly from SC/BW to SC2, but that is the nature of computer/video games and part of the fun... learning how to play again.
|
On September 10 2007 05:11 Nintu wrote:
People keep saying that even the pro's have imperfect macro and I'm SICK of that argument. One of the biggest differences between pro's and amateurs is that a pro knows when it's more important to micro your MnM's than it is to tell your raxxes to produce more. People say that pro's will often have an expo with 4 scv's just sitting there after being built. Stop calling that "Imperfect" macro. Of course it's not perfect, it's not supposed to be perfect! You're not supposed to be able to perfect macro while still being able to micro your attacks. That defeats the delicate balance which makes Starcraft as intricate as it is.
NaDa knows that his raxx's are done producing, but he realizes it's more important for him to spread his rines than it is tell his raxx's to produce again. Macro to me isn't telling a barracks to build something. Macro to me is the decision that you have found a (small)window of opportunity to go back to your base(s) and complete the tasks that you would be unable to do when there are lurkers coming at you.
The idea that I'll never see idle SCV's anymore breaks my heart. Whenever I see a progamer with idle workers, I don't think "Oh, you have terrible macro." I think, "You have more important things to do right now than macro and I respect your judgment."
With MBS and AM, you no-longer need to balance your tasks between micro and macro. Workers will automatically mine. You can reproduce with a couple key presses without even looking back to your base. The delicate balance of micro and macro that makes NaDa better than everyone of us will be destroyed. The idea of never seeing a progamer lose marines carelessly when he simply wasn't paying attention to them at that time, but rather on macro, bugs me a lot.
I want to see idle scv's. I want to see units die because they were not micro'd. The idea of Starcraft is that you can only complete half the tasks you need to at that moment, you have to decide which tasks are more important to do. MBS and AM just makes it more and more possible for you to do everything you need to.
Starcraft will nolonger be 50%/50% macro/micro, it will be 20%/50% with a lot of free time.
I apologize that I couldn't articulate my points very well, I'm insanely preoccupied, I'll come back later and try and re-articulate some of this stuff.
I tend to disagree with your main point, but I respect the argument. One of the things I think the difficult decision making (do I micro or macro now?) can cause is a lack of aggressiveness. Players would rather wait till that exact moment when it's most convenient to attack... which sometimes gives us long bouts of waiting. Some notable exceptions are the players who are really good and provide a good show but are inconsistent in wins... July, Boxer, Nal_Ra. They are obviously very good players, but I think their often aggressive and fancy tendencies gets them killed as often as not. With MBS, they can be as fancy as they want and not get as far behind on production.
Obviously MBS isn't the total answer... part of it is the fact that you sacrifice economy for a stronger early army or safety for quick tech or what have you. But I hope you see my point.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 11 2007 04:26 Blacklizard wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 05:11 Nintu wrote:
People keep saying that even the pro's have imperfect macro and I'm SICK of that argument. One of the biggest differences between pro's and amateurs is that a pro knows when it's more important to micro your MnM's than it is to tell your raxxes to produce more. People say that pro's will often have an expo with 4 scv's just sitting there after being built. Stop calling that "Imperfect" macro. Of course it's not perfect, it's not supposed to be perfect! You're not supposed to be able to perfect macro while still being able to micro your attacks. That defeats the delicate balance which makes Starcraft as intricate as it is.
NaDa knows that his raxx's are done producing, but he realizes it's more important for him to spread his rines than it is tell his raxx's to produce again. Macro to me isn't telling a barracks to build something. Macro to me is the decision that you have found a (small)window of opportunity to go back to your base(s) and complete the tasks that you would be unable to do when there are lurkers coming at you.
The idea that I'll never see idle SCV's anymore breaks my heart. Whenever I see a progamer with idle workers, I don't think "Oh, you have terrible macro." I think, "You have more important things to do right now than macro and I respect your judgment."
With MBS and AM, you no-longer need to balance your tasks between micro and macro. Workers will automatically mine. You can reproduce with a couple key presses without even looking back to your base. The delicate balance of micro and macro that makes NaDa better than everyone of us will be destroyed. The idea of never seeing a progamer lose marines carelessly when he simply wasn't paying attention to them at that time, but rather on macro, bugs me a lot.
I want to see idle scv's. I want to see units die because they were not micro'd. The idea of Starcraft is that you can only complete half the tasks you need to at that moment, you have to decide which tasks are more important to do. MBS and AM just makes it more and more possible for you to do everything you need to.
Starcraft will nolonger be 50%/50% macro/micro, it will be 20%/50% with a lot of free time.
I apologize that I couldn't articulate my points very well, I'm insanely preoccupied, I'll come back later and try and re-articulate some of this stuff.
I tend to disagree with your main point, but I respect the argument. One of the things I think the difficult decision making (do I micro or macro now?) can cause is a lack of aggressiveness. Players would rather wait till that exact moment when it's most convenient to attack... which sometimes gives us long bouts of waiting. Some notable exceptions are the players who are really good and provide a good show but are inconsistent in wins... July, Boxer, Nal_Ra. They are obviously very good players, but I think their often aggressive and fancy tendencies gets them killed as often as not. With MBS, they can be as fancy as they want and not get as far behind on production. Obviously MBS isn't the total answer... part of it is the fact that you sacrifice economy for a stronger early army or safety for quick tech or what have you. But I hope you see my point.
But now everyone can be as fancy as they want as there won't be a penalty for playing a micro or macro focused style, in terms of worse macro/micro.
Which is boring 
Klockan3
I find it funny that there are people here that actually believes that Blizzard will take out MBS if they scream enough, theres no chance they will do it, simple as that.
They might modify it at least.
|
On September 10 2007 08:05 koryano321 wrote:
-snip-
but what im trying to say in this winded post is, all elements of sc make sc what it is today. it is an exciting part of competitive starcraft. for example, like when oov, nada, or hwasin is fighting a zerg, when you just saw the armies of lets say savior, the armies clash and all units or a majority are lost you are like wtf right? great battle control or some errors made on whoever's part. but then the camera goes to the newly created terran blob that whoever has managed to macro IN THE HEAT OF BATTLE, ready to move out for a second clash of might, do you not get excited? doesnt it put u in awe, you are like thinking, wow goddamn pros, no wonder they are the top of the top, in the midst of all that, you have another 50 marines/medic + army along with tanks and sci vessels already waiting to roll out. i want to be just like em. its
-snip-
OK, you made me realize something. Units can fight on their own. Building facilities won't build jack unless you specifically tell them to. MBS is the locial answer to this without putting in something like infinite "free" queues or slowing down the game speed.
When you are in a situation where you need to micro and macro at the same time, it is more safe to macro if you are beyond early-game. This is whey you see players like OOV still win while throwing away gobs of units late game. He know his units will still fight and do OK even if he ignores them. While if you are a player that micros the hell out of the battle, you may win the battle with less losses, but your gateways didn't remember to build units in an "OK" fashion. Nope, your gateways weren't building anything "good enough" without you telling them to b/c you spent your money before the fight and couldn't queue up extra. You can't ever forget to build units... unless you are relying on larva. B/c without units, you can macro or micro.
I think it comes to this. Since you can't queue units unless you have money, but your units can fight, you are encouraged in BW once the game gets into several bases, is focus on microing as little as possible (micro when it will make a big difference but not a small difference) while building units "no matter what".
|
On September 11 2007 04:39 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2007 04:26 Blacklizard wrote:On September 10 2007 05:11 Nintu wrote:
People keep saying that even the pro's have imperfect macro and I'm SICK of that argument. One of the biggest differences between pro's and amateurs is that a pro knows when it's more important to micro your MnM's than it is to tell your raxxes to produce more. People say that pro's will often have an expo with 4 scv's just sitting there after being built. Stop calling that "Imperfect" macro. Of course it's not perfect, it's not supposed to be perfect! You're not supposed to be able to perfect macro while still being able to micro your attacks. That defeats the delicate balance which makes Starcraft as intricate as it is.
NaDa knows that his raxx's are done producing, but he realizes it's more important for him to spread his rines than it is tell his raxx's to produce again. Macro to me isn't telling a barracks to build something. Macro to me is the decision that you have found a (small)window of opportunity to go back to your base(s) and complete the tasks that you would be unable to do when there are lurkers coming at you.
The idea that I'll never see idle SCV's anymore breaks my heart. Whenever I see a progamer with idle workers, I don't think "Oh, you have terrible macro." I think, "You have more important things to do right now than macro and I respect your judgment."
With MBS and AM, you no-longer need to balance your tasks between micro and macro. Workers will automatically mine. You can reproduce with a couple key presses without even looking back to your base. The delicate balance of micro and macro that makes NaDa better than everyone of us will be destroyed. The idea of never seeing a progamer lose marines carelessly when he simply wasn't paying attention to them at that time, but rather on macro, bugs me a lot.
I want to see idle scv's. I want to see units die because they were not micro'd. The idea of Starcraft is that you can only complete half the tasks you need to at that moment, you have to decide which tasks are more important to do. MBS and AM just makes it more and more possible for you to do everything you need to.
Starcraft will nolonger be 50%/50% macro/micro, it will be 20%/50% with a lot of free time.
I apologize that I couldn't articulate my points very well, I'm insanely preoccupied, I'll come back later and try and re-articulate some of this stuff.
I tend to disagree with your main point, but I respect the argument. One of the things I think the difficult decision making (do I micro or macro now?) can cause is a lack of aggressiveness. Players would rather wait till that exact moment when it's most convenient to attack... which sometimes gives us long bouts of waiting. Some notable exceptions are the players who are really good and provide a good show but are inconsistent in wins... July, Boxer, Nal_Ra. They are obviously very good players, but I think their often aggressive and fancy tendencies gets them killed as often as not. With MBS, they can be as fancy as they want and not get as far behind on production. Obviously MBS isn't the total answer... part of it is the fact that you sacrifice economy for a stronger early army or safety for quick tech or what have you. But I hope you see my point. But now everyone can be as fancy as they want as there won't be a penalty for playing a micro or macro focused style, in terms of worse macro/micro. Which is boring Klockan3 Show nested quote +I find it funny that there are people here that actually believes that Blizzard will take out MBS if they scream enough, theres no chance they will do it, simple as that. They might modify it at least.
 More fancy play is boring? Nah! Really, I think more fancy moves from more players will be cool if there are more options in the game... which is still one of my biggest worries (are we getting less options with easier to use units like the Colossus vs the Reaver+shuttle... or Mothership vs Corsair/arbiter?). I'm not totally pro-MBS, but more fancy stuff just sits better with me... as long as a fair bit of it is fairly hard to pull off/requires skill. I dunno... it's so hard to call how the game will be I tell myself every other day I should just avoid the MBS posts and wait for beta. Heh.
|
On September 11 2007 04:40 Blacklizard wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 08:05 koryano321 wrote:
-snip-
but what im trying to say in this winded post is, all elements of sc make sc what it is today. it is an exciting part of competitive starcraft. for example, like when oov, nada, or hwasin is fighting a zerg, when you just saw the armies of lets say savior, the armies clash and all units or a majority are lost you are like wtf right? great battle control or some errors made on whoever's part. but then the camera goes to the newly created terran blob that whoever has managed to macro IN THE HEAT OF BATTLE, ready to move out for a second clash of might, do you not get excited? doesnt it put u in awe, you are like thinking, wow goddamn pros, no wonder they are the top of the top, in the midst of all that, you have another 50 marines/medic + army along with tanks and sci vessels already waiting to roll out. i want to be just like em. its
-snip-
OK, you made me realize something. Units can fight on their own. Building facilities won't build jack unless you specifically tell them to. MBS is the locial answer to this without putting in something like infinite "free" queues or slowing down the game speed. When you are in a situation where you need to micro and macro at the same time, it is more safe to macro if you are beyond early-game. This is whey you see players like OOV still win while throwing away gobs of units late game. He know his units will still fight and do OK even if he ignores them. While if you are a player that micros the hell out of the battle, you may win the battle with less losses, but your gateways didn't remember to build units in an "OK" fashion. Nope, your gateways weren't building anything "good enough" without you telling them to b/c you spent your money before the fight and couldn't queue up extra. You can't ever forget to build units... unless you are relying on larva. B/c without units, you can macro or micro. I think it comes to this. Since you can't queue units unless you have money, but your units can fight, you are encouraged in BW once the game gets into several bases, is focus on microing as little as possible (micro when it will make a big difference but not a small difference) while building units "no matter what".
Is this fun to you? because i rather control my army instead of pressing ZZZZZZ or DDDDDDD while all my army gets slaughtered and it doesn't matter because i'll just keep pressing ZZZZ DDDDD is much more fun to micro the army this is a real time strategy game so controling your army should be everyone priority, putting focus on using spells maybe split army, trying to keep units alive, you can't do that in brood war because you are too busy macroing, but on sc2 is going to be completely different micro on long games is going to be much more important because you won't have to be in your base smashing ur keyboard on ur 20 gateways, But blizzard is so good that they add warp gates and add ons to make macro more dinamic.
Im pretty sure that thanks to MBS outmacroing the opponent won't be the cheap way to win that it is in midd lev of play, but you actually have to micro on long games like the korean pros that can do it because they reached a macro perfection, which won't be needed giving them a chance to improve strategy, things like Drop pods and Warp gates are going to increase multitasking because it is a nice way to send units in, all this argument about "not going back to your base to macro" is pointless because u'll have to go back to ur base but to micro, or u'll get pod droped or something else, plus good players spend their money almost instantly so if a noob wants to use his 2000 minerals in marines does he have to click every goddamn barrack? hell i bet he 'll get pissed if he have to, and you need this people to obs the pros, so the sponsors invest more on tournaments, but no tl forums rather go hardcore and keep the noobs away, good logic indeed.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 11 2007 04:53 Blacklizard wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2007 04:39 FrozenArbiter wrote:On September 11 2007 04:26 Blacklizard wrote:On September 10 2007 05:11 Nintu wrote:
People keep saying that even the pro's have imperfect macro and I'm SICK of that argument. One of the biggest differences between pro's and amateurs is that a pro knows when it's more important to micro your MnM's than it is to tell your raxxes to produce more. People say that pro's will often have an expo with 4 scv's just sitting there after being built. Stop calling that "Imperfect" macro. Of course it's not perfect, it's not supposed to be perfect! You're not supposed to be able to perfect macro while still being able to micro your attacks. That defeats the delicate balance which makes Starcraft as intricate as it is.
NaDa knows that his raxx's are done producing, but he realizes it's more important for him to spread his rines than it is tell his raxx's to produce again. Macro to me isn't telling a barracks to build something. Macro to me is the decision that you have found a (small)window of opportunity to go back to your base(s) and complete the tasks that you would be unable to do when there are lurkers coming at you.
The idea that I'll never see idle SCV's anymore breaks my heart. Whenever I see a progamer with idle workers, I don't think "Oh, you have terrible macro." I think, "You have more important things to do right now than macro and I respect your judgment."
With MBS and AM, you no-longer need to balance your tasks between micro and macro. Workers will automatically mine. You can reproduce with a couple key presses without even looking back to your base. The delicate balance of micro and macro that makes NaDa better than everyone of us will be destroyed. The idea of never seeing a progamer lose marines carelessly when he simply wasn't paying attention to them at that time, but rather on macro, bugs me a lot.
I want to see idle scv's. I want to see units die because they were not micro'd. The idea of Starcraft is that you can only complete half the tasks you need to at that moment, you have to decide which tasks are more important to do. MBS and AM just makes it more and more possible for you to do everything you need to.
Starcraft will nolonger be 50%/50% macro/micro, it will be 20%/50% with a lot of free time.
I apologize that I couldn't articulate my points very well, I'm insanely preoccupied, I'll come back later and try and re-articulate some of this stuff.
I tend to disagree with your main point, but I respect the argument. One of the things I think the difficult decision making (do I micro or macro now?) can cause is a lack of aggressiveness. Players would rather wait till that exact moment when it's most convenient to attack... which sometimes gives us long bouts of waiting. Some notable exceptions are the players who are really good and provide a good show but are inconsistent in wins... July, Boxer, Nal_Ra. They are obviously very good players, but I think their often aggressive and fancy tendencies gets them killed as often as not. With MBS, they can be as fancy as they want and not get as far behind on production. Obviously MBS isn't the total answer... part of it is the fact that you sacrifice economy for a stronger early army or safety for quick tech or what have you. But I hope you see my point. But now everyone can be as fancy as they want as there won't be a penalty for playing a micro or macro focused style, in terms of worse macro/micro. Which is boring Klockan3 I find it funny that there are people here that actually believes that Blizzard will take out MBS if they scream enough, theres no chance they will do it, simple as that. They might modify it at least. More fancy play is boring? Nah! Really, I think more fancy moves from more players will be cool if there are more options in the game... which is still one of my biggest worries (are we getting less options with easier to use units like the Colossus vs the Reaver+shuttle... or Mothership vs Corsair/arbiter?). I'm not totally pro-MBS, but more fancy stuff just sits better with me... as long as a fair bit of it is fairly hard to pull off/requires skill. I dunno... it's so hard to call how the game will be I tell myself every other day I should just avoid the MBS posts and wait for beta. Heh.
But the fancy stuff is only fancy if not everyone does it 
|
On September 11 2007 04:40 Blacklizard wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 08:05 koryano321 wrote:
-snip-
but what im trying to say in this winded post is, all elements of sc make sc what it is today. it is an exciting part of competitive starcraft. for example, like when oov, nada, or hwasin is fighting a zerg, when you just saw the armies of lets say savior, the armies clash and all units or a majority are lost you are like wtf right? great battle control or some errors made on whoever's part. but then the camera goes to the newly created terran blob that whoever has managed to macro IN THE HEAT OF BATTLE, ready to move out for a second clash of might, do you not get excited? doesnt it put u in awe, you are like thinking, wow goddamn pros, no wonder they are the top of the top, in the midst of all that, you have another 50 marines/medic + army along with tanks and sci vessels already waiting to roll out. i want to be just like em. its
-snip-
OK, you made me realize something. Units can fight on their own. Building facilities won't build jack unless you specifically tell them to. MBS is the locial answer to this without putting in something like infinite "free" queues or slowing down the game speed. When you are in a situation where you need to micro and macro at the same time, it is more safe to macro if you are beyond early-game. This is whey you see players like OOV still win while throwing away gobs of units late game. He know his units will still fight and do OK even if he ignores them. While if you are a player that micros the hell out of the battle, you may win the battle with less losses, but your gateways didn't remember to build units in an "OK" fashion. Nope, your gateways weren't building anything "good enough" without you telling them to b/c you spent your money before the fight and couldn't queue up extra. You can't ever forget to build units... unless you are relying on larva. B/c without units, you can macro or micro. I think it comes to this. Since you can't queue units unless you have money, but your units can fight, you are encouraged in BW once the game gets into several bases, is focus on microing as little as possible (micro when it will make a big difference but not a small difference) while building units "no matter what".
I think you've just pretty much explained the point of us trying to keep MBS out. You are really exaggerating the amount of neglect the pros give their army, for example, oov doesn't throw away units.
Anyway, this is the point of keeping in MBS forcing a play, a decision. Oov knows his units will do ok from experience and so he makes the decision to take time away from his micro to macro instead. All the while a less experienced player would frantically and reflexively try to save his units.
|
Again, if you want to change the balance between macro and micro you don't do that by making the game easier by leveling the macro-playing field.
|
On September 11 2007 05:09 aW]Nevermind wrote:
Im pretty sure that thanks to MBS outmacroing the opponent won't be the cheap way to win that it is in midd lev of play, but you actually have to micro on long games like the korean pros that can do it because they reached a macro perfection, which won't be needed giving them a chance to improve strategy, things like Drop pods and Warp gates are going to increase multitasking because it is a nice way to send units in, all this argument about "not going back to your base to macro" is pointless because u'll have to go back to ur base but to micro, or u'll get pod droped or something else, plus good players spend their money almost instantly so if a noob wants to use his 2000 minerals in marines does he have to click every goddamn barrack? hell i bet he 'll get pissed if he have to, and you need this people to obs the pros, so the sponsors invest more on tournaments, but no tl forums rather go hardcore and keep the noobs away, good logic indeed.
Since when was outmacroing someone a "cheap" way to win? That's like someone in street fighter saying "you know how to throw fireballs and I don't, that's a cheap way for you to win" lmao.
Newbs won't be pissed if they have 2000 minerals. Newbs will be like "lol I'm saving my minerals so I can adapt to my opponent's strategy instantly". Back when I was dirt at this game I used to think that. Seriously, people who blow at the game don't start worrying about money piling up (and many of the specifics that high level players worry about) until they actually learn enough about the game, and at that point they stop being n00bs and start playing the game.
In the end, this argument is kinda like politics (in the US at least). Should we let the mob rule or should we let people who actually know how to rule be the rulers? Obviously the mob encompasses the people who are getting ruled, so they should at least have some say. But then they aren't educated or qualified enough to make major policy decisions. In the end some sort of compromise must be made. The mob gives their opinions to representatives who then take those opinions and form policies satisfying them (or at least most of them). I think personally that the n00bs are more worried about storyline and graphics rather than MBS and that SC2 can satisfy them by looking great and sounding great. SC2 will only satisfy the hardcore gamers by playing great and the majority of hardcore gamers believe MBS isn't needed to play great. And there we have a compromise. Fin.
|
On September 11 2007 06:06 ArC_man wrote:
In the end, this argument is kinda like politics (in the US at least). Should we let the mob rule or should we let people who actually know how to rule be the rulers? Obviously the mob encompasses the people who are getting ruled, so they should at least have some say. But then they aren't educated or qualified enough to make major policy decisions. In the end some sort of compromise must be made. The mob gives their opinions to representatives who then take those opinions and form policies satisfying them (or at least most of them). I think personally that the n00bs are more worried about storyline and graphics rather than MBS and that SC2 can satisfy them by looking great and sounding great. SC2 will only satisfy the hardcore gamers by playing great and the majority of hardcore gamers believe MBS isn't needed to play great. And there we have a compromise. Fin.
Unlike politics the long time regular starcraft players arent educated in the field of game creation or havent studied what the effect of different kinds of games have on the success of the game.
However Blizzard does, your analogy works if we change noobs and pros to Starcraft fanatics and Blizzard developers.
Sure sometimes the mob have right, but usually the authorities know better but they still need to take all the shit from people who dont understand anything but thinks that they know everything.
Currently we have 2 masses arguing against each other wich will never end since a mass will never give up its views since each mass is dumb. In such a case you have to go to the authorities, and what did they say about the matter?
|
i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse.
|
On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote:
i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse.
Great post and I completely agree with you.
My brother wont play RTS games cuz hes not even able to go trough the single player campaign without having to restart some levels too many times. I think I can speak for him when I say that he feels he s not enjoying the game if hes not able to achieve the goals in the missions. My Bro is not a dedicated gamer as I am but he does spend alot of leisure time playing them. When I speak to him about war3 wich is nt that hard of a rts to learn , he just tells me that its not worth it for him because he likes multiplayer mode but he just would nt stand logging in on bnet and getting owned in 5 minutes. Hes watched me lay some games and he just feels like its not possible for someone of his caliber to enjoy the game. Im pretty hyped about SC2 but I dont have to tell you that my brother does nt even want to hear about it. He ll just tell me that he does nt like RTS games , even if SC2 is the best game ever made.
Basically, if Blizz listens to the few hardcore players who play SC and start restricting the UI to make it harder for a player to master the game. Then lots of people are gunna stay discouraged with RTS games and thats a shame because those people could be a great part of our comunity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
