|
On September 29 2007 03:20 IdrA wrote:
well, it would be a good thing if it was near impossible to having perfect macro, because that means there would always be room for growth and improvement, even among the best players.
but your definition of macro is flawed, perfect macro is having as many units as possible. what kinds of units and when/where you have them is part of strategy and timing.
in terms of having as many units as possible, yes stork, oov, bisu, maybe savior and some others, are all close. they rarely ever accumulate more resources than necessary, they all time expos and production buildings very well, especially oov and savior.
and i dont know what you mean by "I haven't seen any gamer instantly build and send reinforcements no matter how good they are", almost all pros make production rounds as soon as the previous one finishes and send units as soon as theyre built. given their speed that is only difficult to do in late game when theres a massive amount of stuff going on.
No it's not flawed. Macro is about getting as many units as possible as fast and as efficently as possible. It's allways better to build and send units as fast as you can and if the pro's could do it they would, and infact in the early game when they have the option they do exactly that because it's useless to have many units if they aren't in the frontline.
And yeah pro's spend their money very well and build a lot of units but they build them in batches. Nada goes back and activates 8 barracks and usually send his waiting 8 marines to his army. But if he could (as shown as what he does in the early game when he only has 2 rax) he would build each and every marine when he has exactly 50 minerals and rally them to his forces because then he would have more marines than his enemy untill the enemies entire batch of marines arrived.
This is common sense. We see it being done in early games all the time. If perfect macro would be to just spend the money to get units the pro's wouldn't carefully time when they build supplies and barracks (still a part of macro although it includes timing and strategy as well) because they could just build more barracks and build the marines later, rigth?
Or that kind of strategy would get them killed. Macro is allways about using your minerals as efficently as possible which in an RTS means getting as many units as fast as possible.
Strategy is about which unit to build, timing is about sacrificing certain things to get other things faster in a certain timeframe.
MBS would allow people to get units faster regardless of timing or strategy and is therfore purely macro related.
A real pro would use his APM to build every unit individually with MBS instead of using the same ammount of clicks to build them in a batch.
A noob would use 1 click to build exactly the same ammount of units but he would get all of his units when the last unit of his opponent came out which would be a delay proprtional to how fast his minerals were gathered.
Which means that during that time he would have been outnumbered in every battle.
|
everyone is argueing over this still.. lets all just face it.. Good gamers dont want MBS and Newbs do.. thats just how it is.. the newbs will come and go. leaving for new games only months after sc2 is released.. while the good gamers would stick around and play competitively as possible (if blizzard doesnt screw it up)
-Lz~
|
IMO, the most meaningful arguments were made back around page 1-2 and 16-20 and one from page 23 that I will quote here (everyone should read this). The rest are mostly rehashes of previous points or are made without truly understanding the reasons for the opposing side's beliefs. Meanwhile, the anti-MBS side is simply proclaiming victory due to their side outnumbering the others (unsurprising since this is a site focusing on pro-gaming of the current SC).
On September 28 2007 14:45 1esu wrote:
Honestly, iirc there are only two reasons that I agree with the anti-MBS side on why MBS/automine might negatively affect competitive gameplay:
1) It takes out the negative feedback loop in macro.
As you got more buildings in SC, the interface would make it progressively harder to order units. Therefore, the advantage you got from having more buildings was partially nullified by the increased difficulty of building them, thus giving the player behind an opportunity to catch back up. SC has a very large positive feedback loop, in that being significantly ahead in resources makes it very difficult for one's opponent to come back in the game, and so removing a mechanic that helps mitigate this effect and allow more comebacks is certainly important. However, in the highest levels of SC play most players have roughly equal macro mechanics, so this negative feedback loop is not very effective at that level anyways. I'd personally be more worried on its effect on lower-level games, as it makes errors or losses increasingly difficult to recoup; for example, losing a handful of workers to harrass is much more of a disadvantage with MBS enabled than without. However, if this turns out to be an issue, then we already have a couple of solutions handy: the 'one unit, one click' idea, and the 'selection within a certain radius' idea, to name two.
2) It takes out a considerable portion of multitasking, since you don't have to return to your base as often.
Personally, this is more of an issue with automining, because I think there's plenty of returning to your base to be done with MBS, as every time you want to change the composition of the units you're building from a building type you have to go back to your base and "shift-click, shift-click, shift-click...ctrl-#". However, if that's still not enough, keep in mind that even those who have played SC2 on these forums have played a considerably incomplete alpha version of SC2. Would you make judgements on SC as a game based on the SC alpha? There's still plenty of features and mechanics to come, some of which will likely bring SC2 multitasking back up on par with SC. If Blizzard doesn't do this, then some quick fixes would be to replace automining with an idle worker button, and MBS ideas like 'select but don't hotkey'.
Regardless, judging from these discussions I'm sure that if MBS is included in the final version of the game, no matter what form it is in or whether it affects the competitiveness of the game, that a certain percentage of SC veterans will hate its inclusion. For those people, I'd just like to point out that modding the engine so that it implements a SC1 interface is definitely possible (I'd say practically inevitable), as shown by Project Revolution, which did it for the WC3 engine; even easier, in fact, since it appears Blizzard is putting updated models of ALL the SC1 units in the level editor, thus only requiring a coder. Think of it as a 'CS promod' for SC2.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
i think all 25 pages have good arguments. I also think the anti MBS side is definitely making more legitimate points. And yes, since Tl.net is a pro gaming web site and most of the high level players and long time tl.net members disagree with MBS it\'s a fair representation of how the pro sc community will react to MBS in the game: Not well. Bare in mind many of these posters have already played the game and were unimpressed.
I think you\'d see the same reaction with all the pro basketball players being told they didn\'t have to dribble the ball any more and instead could focus more on shooting hoops. As if they didn\'t love dribbling the ball as much as passing, stealing and dunking. They loved all the parts.
The Pro MBS side has failed to explain what will occupy the gamer while he is not macroing. As if good SC players can\'t macro, micro, out position and out think their opponent all at the same time. It\'s challenging of course, but sexy at the same time. The pro MBS side seems to assert (with no backing) that the game will somehow be better with simpler macro. As if no one was using strategy while they macroed in the last 10 years this game has been out. I have played this game competitively since the beginning, i have talked to players from all over the world, good and bad, and i have never ONCE heard a player say they wished macro was easier. It seems almost as if this group of pro mbs players have never attended lans or tournaments. That they never played Starcraft competitively at all. As i\'ve said before: They will probably be happy playing Starcraft their way in non competitive public games.
Adding MBS is like adding another button for kens Hiduken punch in Street fighter (as if Street Fighter players complain about the difficulty of combos) Then adding another button for his Spin Kick (Now we have another combo move simplified). It\'s as if people stopped playing Street fighter because doing special moves was too intimidating when in fact people still play street fighter today.
Your vision of what pro gaming is supposed to be like SHOULD have occurred in another RTS game already. Go look at the ass load of MBS RTS games that exist, even read LazerFlips post about how MBS has made those games terrible. If MBS was all an RTS needed by now then esports would have flourished across the globe, but it hasn\'t. This is like hearing George Bush\'s \'Stay the Course\' crap when it\'s obvious we need to get the fuck out of iraq.
The only RTS game with close (but not that close) success in esports was War3, a game that had hardly any macro but an INTENSE amount of micro. Most SC players still wanted macro and micro ballance and that\'s why there are more people playing SC than War3 today.
Blizzard will have a powerful esports scene IMMEDIATELY with a similar UI and that will be more than enough to fuel a world wide competitive esports scene. We COULD have have games on TV everywhere, but you need competitive people who are insane and want to play that shit for 10 hours a day just to be the best. The graphics will be good enough for major companies to take interest in it, especially when looking at the korean scene. Those people need as many features as possible to be the best. The evidence is overwhelming, MBS\'s is nonexistent.
(yes i know i\'m posting on here again!)
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On September 29 2007 06:19 Chodorkovskiy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2007 06:11 IdrA wrote:
....
its not like theres some genetic barrier preventing non koreans from playing as well as koreans. its a cultural difference. sc1 happened to catch just right in korean culture so that it became the massive mainstream media giant it is today, that much attention and money going into it allows/encourages lots and lots of players to play 24/7 with the hope of becoming the best. given that environment any country could produce korean-equivalent talent and ability.
if you honestly want there to be a non-korean progaming scene that can rival what korea has for bw, you should want sc2 to be as close to sc as possible and for blizzard/other sponsors to hype the shit out of it when it comes out.
starcraft has shown it can maintain a high profile, mainstream progaming scene. other games have shown that.. they cant. if sc2 comes out as a game that is as good as starcraft in terms of gameplay and entertainment, but gets the publicity and sponsorship that all the other new shitty rts' get, it will be huge.
but if what you want is a newb friendly game that people only play until the next 'big game' comes out, then go ahead and dumb it down to match the rest of the games.
Duude... are you saying the world should adapt to StarCraft?
yes, many have, and many more will.
it's a fun interactive way to play (by limiting someones complete control over the game), someone who isn't competitive will probably not enjoy it, then again... they probably wouldn't enjoy esports to begin with.
|
This thread is still going?
|
I have now been converted to the anti-MBS side, due to the good points that MBS would possible reduce the high tension competitiveness of SC2 ( or at least I think that was the gist of what I skimmed). I now believe that although not having MBS may reduce a large part of the audience, I'd much rather enjoy trying my best to multitask 4 things at once, and watching pros do it all almost flawlessly.
But it's still really a gamble. Take out MBS and lose a (possibly big) audience, but keep it in and possibly lose the good pro scene. If we're lucky, it'll be another starcraft, a good casual game(or at least that's what it seems like to me, as it isn't too hard to learn to play casually on b.net), and still good for pro games. So, my question to you is, Do you feel lucky?
|
Great post Tasteless. One of the best in this whole thread as it captures the whole gist of the anti-MBS side without marginalizing the other. While I disagree with a few points, on the whole I believe you are mostly correct.
On September 29 2007 12:15 MyLostTemple wrote:
The Pro MBS side has failed to explain what will occupy the gamer while he is not macroing. As if good SC players can\'t macro, micro, out position and out think their opponent all at the same time. It\'s challenging of course, but sexy at the same time. The pro MBS side seems to assert (with no backing) that the game will somehow be better with simpler macro. As if no one was using strategy while they macroed in the last 10 years this game has been out.
I agree with you here. If macro is only simplified and nothing is added to increase the amount of multitasking and mechanical skill required to play SC2 at a competitive level, then MBS may not be a positive feature for SC2's pro-scene.
However, some of the more sensible pro-MBS supporters are trusting that Blizzard will be designing SC2 with MBS/automining already being in the game. Some early developments (to back this up) would be the addition of warp gates to Protoss, which requires MBS to function well and still takes a bit of effort to use.
Another way to promote increased macro even with the presence of MBS is to make differing unit combinations necessary throughout the game. So, if the strategical depth in the game succeeds to the point where the ideal macro would be to make marines, medics, reapers, tanks, cobras and vikings in different ratios at various periods of the game, then MBS would not necessarily be the best way to manage production. Lesser players will simply use MBS to mass produce units, but the very best will manually tweak their unit combinations to suit their strategy and adapt to their opponent throughout the game. This is just hoping of course, but I will give Blizzard the benefit of the doubt and we will see later on when the game reaches beta if this is actually the case.
I definitely want the mechanical skill requirement (apm) to be extremely high for SC at the competitive level, but I am not convinced that an artificially limiting UI is the best way to resolve this issue. It is definitely the easiest solution (and worked great in SC), but implementing it in a game to be released into the RTS market in 2008 brings along a host of its own problems as I'm sure you are aware (e.g. poor reviews, negative word of mouth, frustrated noobs, etc; see Armies of Exigo). It's all up to Blizzard in the end to make a sequel worthy of being passed SC's pro-gaming torch and become the next great E-Sport worldwide and in Korea.
On September 29 2007 12:15 MyLostTemple wrote:
Adding MBS is like adding another button for kens Hiduken punch in Street fighter (as if Street Fighter players complain about the difficulty of combos) Then adding another button for his Spin Kick (Now we have another combo move simplified). It\'s as if people stopped playing Street fighter because doing special moves was too intimidating when in fact people still play street fighter today.
You make a good point here. I'd just like to point out that under the ideal conditions (what I'm hoping from Blizzard), SC2 with MBS will be like the Street Fighter you described. Hopefully, the lesser players will simply use MBS (kinda like using normal punches, kicks, etc) while the better players will manually alter their unit combinations and such throughout the game (using "difficult combos") because simple MBS just won't cut it. Again, this is the best-case scenario.
On September 29 2007 12:15 MyLostTemple wrote:
Your vision of what pro gaming is supposed to be like SHOULD have occurred in another RTS game already. Go look at the ass load of MBS RTS games that exist, even read LazerFlips post about how MBS has made those games terrible. If MBS was all an RTS needed by now then esports would have flourished across the globe, but it hasn\'t. This is like hearing George Bush\'s \'Stay the Course\' crap when it\'s obvious we need to get the fuck out of iraq.
The fact that most RTS's have failed is not due to MBS and automining. The primary reason why almost every other RTS does not reach the level of success of Blizzard's is because they are not made with as much love and care. Blizzard puts much thought into every aspect of their RTS franchise, and spends an enormous time designing, redesigning, balancing, and again rebalancing until they are completely and utterly satisfied with their work. This should be clear in their design process for SC2.
Every other RTS from every other company released so far (excluding mirror races) has major imbalances in their game (e.g. C&C tank rushes, superweapons, etc). Any patches often only fix only technical issues, and rarely address gameplay. This is a problem, because any large imbalance in a strategy game immediately causes the strategical game metatype to become entirely one dimensional. People start building the same mix of units every game, because it is the strongest/most effective/least counterable. This is pretty much a death sentence to any game at the competitive level, and causes players and audience to quickly lose interest.
On September 29 2007 12:15 MyLostTemple wrote:
The only RTS game with close (but not that close) success in esports was War3, a game that had hardly any macro but an INTENSE amount of micro. Most SC players still wanted macro and micro ballance and that\'s why there are more people playing SC than War3 today.
I also hope SC will retain a similar balance, even with MBS (due to addition of other macro tasks and manual tweaking). If in fact, the balance is completely lost when the game reaches beta, then we can rightly complain and try to make Blizzard change it.
On September 29 2007 12:15 MyLostTemple wrote:
Blizzard will have a powerful esports scene IMMEDIATELY with a similar UI and that will be more than enough to fuel a world wide competitive esports scene. We COULD have have games on TV everywhere, but you need competitive people who are insane and want to play that shit for 10 hours a day just to be the best. The graphics will be good enough for major companies to take interest in it, especially when looking at the korean scene. Those people need as many features as possible to be the best. The evidence is overwhelming, MBS\'s is nonexistent.
Yes, it's true that we would immediately have a decent E-Sports scene even if MBS is removed, but are you really satisfied with just that? IMO, the scene will not expand greatly beyond the current SC scene due to the aforementioned problems with keeping an "archaic interface". It likely won't reach a critical acceptance rate to make televised leagues viable outside of Korea if you rely on these same people. SC2 is one of those rare opportunities to significantly advance the pro-gaming scene outside of Korea, and the only real way to do so is to attract as much fresh blood as possible.
Firstly, remember that most people who become pro-gamers generally start off when they are still in their teens and when they have plenty of free time. Assuming that SC gets released sometime in 2009-2010 (it's Blizzard), a lot of these new players would have been about 5-8 years old when SC was originally released. Most of them have not even played SC before, so of course they wouldn't understand why the UI is so limiting after being "spoiled" by the modern UI of RTS's from 2000 onwards. So when they lose, they'll hear about how Blizzard removed MBS only to please the SC veterans. Rather than blaming themselves for their losses, they'll instead lay the blame on the game for its outdated interface and how the other player only won by clicking buildings faster than them.
I would not underestimate how many potential pros could be turned away due to this kind of scenario, because everyone starts off as a newb before they start seriously gaming. It would be a shame if we lost this chance because not enough new players (or pros from other games) stuck around long enough to become competitive due to becoming frustrated with the game.
I'm not worried about the Korean scene. The goal for Blizzard should be to try to expand E-Sports in the rest of the world, because it is currently severely lacking. If SC2 is only successful in Korea, I would consider it a failure on Blizzard's part.
|
MBS = screwed up.. somone explain how are u going to catch ur oppenet off gaurd.. when all he does is watch his army 99% of the time.. while he uses 2 hot keys (1: Command Center) (2: Barracks) .. serious how the in the world could lurkers/lings ever stand a chance vs. a terran like nada or boxer??? who would only have to micro the entire game?? its gay and should never be in ANY RTS GAME .. unless they want to suck~
|
Lz, the lurker/MM example wouldn't hold maybe because it's SC2 and not SC with MBS added on (which would be broken)? I am also not advocating making SC2 micro-based rather than macro-based, and Blizzard doesn't intend this as well as they have stated in more than one interview. Saying the other side is gay doesn't help your point at all, except make your post look more immature. Please read my post and think before commenting.
|
On September 29 2007 16:46 orangedude wrote:
Lz, the lurker/MM example wouldn't hold maybe because it's SC2 and not SC with MBS added on (which would be broken)? I am also not advocating making SC2 micro-based rather than macro-based, and Blizzard doesn't intend this as well as they have stated in more than one interview. Saying the other side is gay doesn't help your point at all, except make your post look more immature. Please read my post and think before commenting.
This is the argument I can't stand: that it will be balanced because blizzard is designing it with MBS in mind. Blizzard doesn't balance their games, and really has no idea how. The ability for Brood War to be balanced by mapmakers luckily happened, and we got a great game. Unfortunately, with MBS included, it's very unlikely anything can balance the game in a competitive manner than allows for both macro and micro players.
|
hmmm also what about the zerg? how would their mbs work..
|
On September 29 2007 18:56 LonelyMargarita wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2007 16:46 orangedude wrote:
Lz, the lurker/MM example wouldn't hold maybe because it's SC2 and not SC with MBS added on (which would be broken)? I am also not advocating making SC2 micro-based rather than macro-based, and Blizzard doesn't intend this as well as they have stated in more than one interview. Saying the other side is gay doesn't help your point at all, except make your post look more immature. Please read my post and think before commenting. This is the argument I can't stand: that it will be balanced because blizzard is designing it with MBS in mind. Blizzard doesn't balance their games, and really has no idea how. The ability for Brood War to be balanced by mapmakers luckily happened, and we got a great game. Unfortunately, with MBS included, it's very unlikely anything can balance the game in a competitive manner than allows for both macro and micro players.
Right, Blizzard doesn't balance their games even when they have pro-gamers testing them during development and a former pro (Pillars) in charge of balancing. SC probably went through countless revisions before it was released. Even though the original wasn't perfectly balanced, adding on BW and all those 20+ patches helped a great deal. Who made Lost Temple, one of the most widely played and balanced maps of all time?
I'll admit that map makers have helped the game remain fresh through the years and helps certain racial imbalances, but this only happened after the game had already caught on in Korea. They do not really determine the general macro/micro ratio in a game either, although they can make a more macro- or micro-oriented map. Regardless, SC will always be far more macro-based than micro because of the way Blizzard designed the game.
Anyways, if you don't have any faith in Blizzard at all then this is your opinion, and we'll just have to disagree. Have fun on BW when the rest of us will be playing SC2.
On September 30 2007 00:55 Juglinjugglo wrote:
hmmm also what about the zerg? how would their mbs work..
Not sure, but I would assume it to be a lot harder to use MBS with zerg efficiently since they have to balance different unit types with drones in various ratios throughout the game depending on what the situation calls for. Early on with only 1-5 hatches in the game, I'd guess that a pro would hotkey each hatch individually to maximize their precise control over production. Later on, with 6+ hatches they would probably separate them into control groups of 2 or 3 hatches each in order to retain that preciseness while also making it a bit more manageable. This is just what I predict though, so we'll really have to see later on.
|
|
|
On September 29 2007 08:08 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2007 03:20 IdrA wrote:
well, it would be a good thing if it was near impossible to having perfect macro, because that means there would always be room for growth and improvement, even among the best players.
but your definition of macro is flawed, perfect macro is having as many units as possible. what kinds of units and when/where you have them is part of strategy and timing.
in terms of having as many units as possible, yes stork, oov, bisu, maybe savior and some others, are all close. they rarely ever accumulate more resources than necessary, they all time expos and production buildings very well, especially oov and savior.
and i dont know what you mean by "I haven't seen any gamer instantly build and send reinforcements no matter how good they are", almost all pros make production rounds as soon as the previous one finishes and send units as soon as theyre built. given their speed that is only difficult to do in late game when theres a massive amount of stuff going on. No it's not flawed. Macro is about getting as many units as possible as fast and as efficently as possible. It's allways better to build and send units as fast as you can and if the pro's could do it they would, and infact in the early game when they have the option they do exactly that because it's useless to have many units if they aren't in the frontline. And yeah pro's spend their money very well and build a lot of units but they build them in batches. Nada goes back and activates 8 barracks and usually send his waiting 8 marines to his army. But if he could (as shown as what he does in the early game when he only has 2 rax) he would build each and every marine when he has exactly 50 minerals and rally them to his forces because then he would have more marines than his enemy untill the enemies entire batch of marines arrived. This is common sense. We see it being done in early games all the time. If perfect macro would be to just spend the money to get units the pro's wouldn't carefully time when they build supplies and barracks (still a part of macro although it includes timing and strategy as well) because they could just build more barracks and build the marines later, rigth? Or that kind of strategy would get them killed. Macro is allways about using your minerals as efficently as possible which in an RTS means getting as many units as fast as possible. Strategy is about which unit to build, timing is about sacrificing certain things to get other things faster in a certain timeframe. MBS would allow people to get units faster regardless of timing or strategy and is therfore purely macro related. A real pro would use his APM to build every unit individually with MBS instead of using the same ammount of clicks to build them in a batch. A noob would use 1 click to build exactly the same ammount of units but he would get all of his units when the last unit of his opponent came out which would be a delay proprtional to how fast his minerals were gathered. Which means that during that time he would have been outnumbered in every battle.
that doesnt contradict anything i said. do you think its impossible for progamers to make production buildings at the most efficient times and to produce rounds of units as quickly as possible?
because they can.. and for the most they part do.
|
It's is impossible for pro gamers to do it yes. Especially with the current interface. They are the cream of the crop when it comes to maximizing what is possible with the current interface, but it's no where near optimal macro.
|
how is it impossible? there is nothing about the macro process that is impossible to perfect, and yes current progamers are very close to it.
the most difficult part is timing expansions and production buildings properly. expansion timing is only a matter of reading the game and playing as risky as possible without dying, adding production buildings is only a matter of experience, knowing when your expansions are going to kick in and how many buildings an expansion can support. given that they practice 12-14 hours a day... progamers are pretty adept at reading game situations.
the other part of macro, the production of units, is the easy part, going back to your production buildings and making the actual units every time the previous round of units finish.
i dont see where the impossibility lies in either part.
|
On September 30 2007 05:45 IdrA wrote:
how is it impossible? there is nothing about the macro process that is impossible to perfect, and yes current progamers are very close to it.
the most difficult part is timing expansions and production buildings properly. expansion timing is only a matter of reading the game and playing as risky as possible without dying, adding production buildings is only a matter of experience, knowing when your expansions are going to kick in and how many buildings an expansion can support. given that they practice 12-14 hours a day... progamers are pretty adept at reading game situations.
...
i dont see where the impossibility lies in either part.
Impossibility lies in the part, that there are scouting, minimap at the corner and battles at multiple fronts. Macro alone isn't hard in SC, but let's not take it alone when we are talking about whole game.
On September 30 2007 05:45 IdrA wrote:
the other part of macro, the production of units, is the easy part, going back to your production buildings and making the actual units every time the previous round of units finish.
Ok. We are talking about MBS and MBS affects *only* this part. How would competition reduce if the improvements affects only the part that's already "easy" and therefore have no impact over competition from the beginning?
On September 29 2007 18:56 LonelyMargarita wrote:
This is the argument I can't stand: that it will be balanced because blizzard is designing it with MBS in mind. Blizzard doesn't balance their games, and really has no idea how. The ability for Brood War to be balanced by mapmakers luckily happened, and we got a great game.
If you don't believe blizzard is able to balance then why the heck are you waiting sc2? They removed half of units and added things which affect gameplay and balance much greater than MBS. If they don't know how to balance, what are you doing here?
|
On September 30 2007 06:45 InRaged wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2007 05:45 IdrA wrote:
how is it impossible? there is nothing about the macro process that is impossible to perfect, and yes current progamers are very close to it.
the most difficult part is timing expansions and production buildings properly. expansion timing is only a matter of reading the game and playing as risky as possible without dying, adding production buildings is only a matter of experience, knowing when your expansions are going to kick in and how many buildings an expansion can support. given that they practice 12-14 hours a day... progamers are pretty adept at reading game situations.
...
i dont see where the impossibility lies in either part.
Impossibility lies in the part, that there are scouting, minimap at the corner and battles at multiple fronts. Macro alone isn't hard in SC, but let's not take it alone when we are talking about whole game.
please read the discussion before you try to comment on it, we were talking only about the possibility of 'perfect macro'
Show nested quote +On September 30 2007 05:45 IdrA wrote:
the other part of macro, the production of units, is the easy part, going back to your production buildings and making the actual units every time the previous round of units finish. Ok. We are talking about MBS and MBS affects *only* this part. How would competition reduce if the improvements affects only the part that's already "easy" and therefore have no impact over competition from the beginning?
i meant easy relative to the decision making involved in the first part, but being easy does not mean that it can be removed without having a significant effect on the game. even if it is not a difficult to perform, it is something very important that you have to do quite often. you still have to pop back to your base every 20 seconds, even if all you do is clicktclicktclicktclickvclickv and so on, as compared to sc2 macro where you would have to hit 7t8v and never look away from your units. its significantly easier, but more importantly it means you dont need to multitask as much, takes out the decision making involved in leaving your units to go back and produce more.
Show nested quote +On September 29 2007 18:56 LonelyMargarita wrote:
This is the argument I can't stand: that it will be balanced because blizzard is designing it with MBS in mind. Blizzard doesn't balance their games, and really has no idea how. The ability for Brood War to be balanced by mapmakers luckily happened, and we got a great game. If you don't believe blizzard is able to balance then why the heck are you waiting sc2? They removed half of units and added things which affect gameplay and balance much greater than MBS. If they don't know how to balance, what are you doing here?
not trusting blizz's competence is all the more reason to voice concerns here, in the hopes that they will see it and take it into consideration and so make a better game.
|
On September 30 2007 07:15 IdrA wrote:
not trusting blizz's competence is all the more reason to voice concerns here, in the hopes that they will see it and take it into consideration and so make a better game.
And let's say Blizzard was reading this post right now. You think they would ever take it seriously with quotes like this?
On September 29 2007 18:56 LonelyMargarita wrote:
Blizzard doesn't balance their games, and really has no idea how. The ability for Brood War to be balanced by mapmakers luckily happened, and we got a great game.
There's a big difference between constructive criticism and feedback that they can take into consideration when designing SC2 and just plain negativity/cynicism that doesn't help anyone. All past evidence has demonstrated that Blizzard balances their games better than any other company in the world, and this just shows utter disrespect for their work (including SC). I don't know why you are defending him.
A good post on the other hand would be like Tasteless' post. He takes into account both sides of the issue and demonstrates in great detail why he believes MBS should be removed from the game to preserve the current pro-scene. Anyone reading that can actually learn something from it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
