EPTWhy MBS Is Essential To a Competitive SC2 - Page 28
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
SmileOrDie
Canada8 Posts
| ||
|
Brutalisk
794 Posts
If you are the best in a video game, you're no prominent person except in the gaming scene. You'll probably be laughed at by normal people, because anyone who sits on the computer too much is often considered to be a useless nerd, even though that person might be a really good and competitive player and still a normal human after all. But you're just a nothing compared to a good player from a normal sport. For this attitude to change, it'll take many more years. SC2 most probably won't change anything here. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
On September 30 2007 15:44 SmileOrDie wrote: like im going to read that... itll take me bout 2hours rofl I'm gathering you didn't read this either, douchebag. | ||
|
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
On September 30 2007 15:31 Aphelion wrote: 1.) Don't confuse the Chinese government's speaking out with popular gaming. It is completely different from the popular nerd stereotype Americans have. I live in both countries and experienced it personally. 2.) The European "pro" scenes are completely off the track of how Korea developed. They're not even on the path to being a mainstream mature scene. Its a fringe movement. Its not step by step - its going an entirely different path, one that I believe is dead-end. As for America - no RTS progaming for the next 10 years. Book it. 3.) I don't believe its possible that the mechanical skill would be kept the same without MBS. Even if it were, the multitasking and macro balance would be gone. 4.) No one said correlation is causation. But I have a strong correlation, arguments from good players, and personal experience. MBS is also has a strong logical argument for it affecting the game - unlike 3D (you still need to be careful with that though). The combination of that is strong evidence you cannot ignore, even if it doesn't constitute perfect proof. 5.) Our risk-reward accessments are off because we differ about the impact of MBS on actual play and the gaming scene. Its not that I am myopically focused on the worst possible aspects - I'm just saying the expected value is negative. And my arguments for that are given above. 1) Okay. 2) You have to realize that most major sports/games started off as a fringe movement as well. How did basketball, hockey, baseball and the like start off? They didn't catch on like wildfire, but just slowly developed interest until they hit a critical point and then it just took off until it became mainstream. Or take poker as an example. It started off as an underground game and had the stigma of being a game played by shady people. Gradually though, it grew in acceptance and is now even considered a sport. 3) In the game's current state, I would have to agree with you. But, this is still too early to tell IMO, because we don't even have 3 races in and there is just a lot more than Blizzard can add to the game before it goes into beta. 4) Regardless of how strong the correlation is, it doesn't prove anything. On the other hand, the arguments from good players, however, are indeed favoring the anti-MBS side currently. I believe there are also some who have taken the wait-and-see approach. While I would never discount their opinions, you have to admit that it would be in their interest to have SC2 turn out as close to SC as possible. This way, all that time they've spent on training SC would be directly transferable to its sequel and they can continue to dominate all the newer migrating SC2 pros from other games. Anyways, this is still no proof that MBS will in fact suck. 5) But this "expected value" is from your judgments of only the current build of SC2. I am saying it may turn out a lot better than this and we will see whether this is the case come beta and at least when Zerg is finished. Project Revolution is another chance for solid evidence of the impacts of MBS on an exact copy of SC. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
Oh, and I don't have much hope for Project Revolution. The smart money now is that SC2 comes out before it does. | ||
|
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
On September 30 2007 16:06 Aphelion wrote: I don't need proof to make a judgment, especially when so much of yours are based upon absolute conjecture. I have a very strong case based upon probability and correlation, which is more than you can say. Changes have to be made to the game based upon imperfect knowledge of the final situation, that is the enduring fact of it. And really the game has to be decided as MBS or not before beta - too much other balance work is dependent on that. Such a core decision can't be changed that late in game design. There is, however, the highly likely probability of many would-be competitive players being turned away from SC2 though due to the UI. This point cannot be denied, and we can see examples like that War3 player who complained about how he felt the "unnecessary macro" in SC cost him games. I'm sure there are many others highly skilled players like him from the War3 and other communities. Even if it's true that SC2 will never reach mainstream outside of Korea, I still think it has plenty of room to expand (like in Europe) and taking away MBS would be eliminating this possibility. This is basically taking the safe route (in E-Sports terms), but an important opportunity for growth is lost here in exchange for immediate comfort. Forget beta for SC2 then, we can see when it reaches full feature completion, which could be far sooner than that. On September 30 2007 16:06 Aphelion wrote: Oh, and I don't have much hope for Project Revolution. The smart money now is that SC2 comes out before it does. Nah, Project Revolution is going well actually. Go check out the site. It's in closed beta, with all units, structures and interface finished. It'll at least beat SC2 by a long shot. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
On September 30 2007 16:29 orangedude wrote: There is, however, also the highly likely probability of many would-be competitive players being turned away though from SC2 though. Even if it's true that SC2 will never reach mainstream outside of Korea, I still think it has plenty of room to expand (like in Europe) and taking away MBS would be eliminating this possibility. This is basically taking the safe route (in E-Sports terms), but an important opportunity for growth is lost here in exchange for immediate comfort. Forget beta for SC2 then, we can see when it reaches full feature completion, which could be far sooner than that. Nah, Project Revolution is going well actually. Go check out the site. It's in closed beta, with all units, structures and interface finished. It'll at least beat SC2 by a long shot. I believe that if you are turned away from SC2 due to lack of MBS, you aren't a would-be-competitive player anyways. This room for expansion isn't worth it. Popularity issues aside, I believe that MBS would make SC2 at its core, a worse game. I'm not willing for that to happen, no matter how popular it would make the game. | ||
|
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
On September 30 2007 16:33 Aphelion wrote: I believe that if you are turned away from SC2 due to lack of MBS, you aren't a would-be-competitive player anyways. This room for expansion isn't worth it. Popularity issues aside, I believe that MBS would make SC2 at its core, a worse game. I'm not willing for that to happen, no matter how popular it would make the game. But he was a competitive player. He said he had 200+ apm and was the top War3 player in his country. That is not an easy feat. His whole clan ended up sharing the same sentiments after trying out SC for a while. You are free to believe that and have your reasons for reaching this conclusion, but I would value the relative importance of expansion much more highly than you do. This all comes down to personal beliefs, as I do think Blizzard will be able to implement MBS with other features and keep a similar core game. The potential benefits are basically higher IMO than how you see them. I guess we can't really change each others' views in this regard. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
On September 30 2007 16:47 orangedude wrote: But he was a competitive player. He said he had 200+ apm and was the top War3 player in his country. That is not an easy feat. His whole clan ended up sharing the same sentiments after trying out SC for a while. You are free to believe that and have your reasons for reaching this conclusion, but I would value the relative importance of expansion much more highly than you do. This all comes down to personal beliefs, as I do think Blizzard will be able to implement MBS with other features and keep a similar core game. The potential benefits are basically higher IMO than how you see them. I guess we can't really change each others' views in this regard. He also showed zero appreciation for macro at all. He is a competitive player - but not for SC, and not a good SC player. He is the fanbase that should be going to War3, period. Blizzard has already agreed that SC would be a different type of game. Make no mistake about it: SC2 will KILL the foreign SC community. BW for us will be a shadow of its former self. If you don't design SC2 as a suitable replacement - you might as well not make it at all. Experiment with new concepts in another franchise. Don't fuck with this one game that is working so well. | ||
|
EGLzGaMeR
United States1867 Posts
If they dont like Macro then there playing the wrong game.. simple as that.. im sorry that starcraft takes more skill then all the other rts's (hell everyone at wcg would have told you that including the wc3 cc3 aoe gamers) but thats the only reason its been fun and competitive for so many years.. who here still plays duck hunt EVERY DAY??? no one.. guess why.. there's more challenging things out there.. you put MBS/automine in SC2 Ladder/competitive play and your opening the door to newbified~ i say you have mbs as a game type that way the newbs can enjoy playing in the sandbox while the hardcore gamers like myself can enjoy millions of hours of True Gaming~ | ||
|
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
On September 30 2007 16:53 Aphelion wrote: He also showed zero appreciation for macro at all. He is a competitive player - but not for SC, and not a good SC player. He is the fanbase that should be going to War3, period. Blizzard has already agreed that SC would be a different type of game. I don't think there is any real difference between a competitive player and a competitive player that is "suited for SC". Both War3 and SC require similar skills and mindsets, but its just that their actions are used on different areas of the game (War3 = micro, SC = macro). The only thing really stopping that high-level War3 player or any other potential pros from becoming better at SC if they gave it a try is frustration and/or disinterest with the game, which he blames on the limiting UI. It would be far better to attract all kinds of potentially competitive players than just those who already are competitive "SC players". On September 30 2007 16:53 Aphelion wrote: Make no mistake about it: SC2 will KILL the foreign SC community. BW for us will be a shadow of its former self. If you don't design SC2 as a suitable replacement - you might as well not make it at all. Experiment with new concepts in another franchise. Don't fuck with this one game that is working so well. For a lot of people though, the current foreign BW scene is already a shadow of its former self. It still has a lot of dedicated players and fans as TL.net shows and interest remains steady due to the successful Korean scene, but I think it used to be much larger. Anyways, SC2 can either revitalize the scene or destroy it, but for reasons I've stated I'm still going with an optimistic view and siding more towards the first. On September 30 2007 17:11 Lz wrote: "There is, however, the highly likely probability of many would-be competitive players being turned away though from SC2 though. This point cannot be denied, and we can see examples like that War3 player who complained about how he felt the "unnecessary macro" in SC cost him games. I'm sure there are many others highly skilled players like him from the War3 community, as well as others." Rofl... If they dont like Macro then there playing the wrong game.. simple as that.. im sorry that starcraft takes more skill then all the other rts's (hell everyone at wcg would have told you that including the wc3 cc3 aoe gamers) but thats the only reason its been fun and competitive for so many years.. who here still plays duck hunt EVERY DAY??? no one.. guess why.. there's more challenging things out there.. you put MBS/automine in SC2 Ladder/competitive play and your opening the door to newbified~ i say you have mbs as a game type that way the newbs can enjoy playing in the sandbox while the hardcore gamers like myself can enjoy millions of hours of True Gaming~ Lz, you can rat on the C&C players all you want, but trust me War3 is not as easy as you think. Decent apm is required throughout and during major battles it can escalate up to 500-600 apm. Yes, SC is probably still the tougher game overall, but War3 is no cakewalk. Even if you spent 2 months on it, you wouldn't be anywhere near pro level. | ||
|
EGLzGaMeR
United States1867 Posts
pillers or anyone who works @ blizzard Dont freakin screw it up, you only get 1 chance --a | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
| ||
mensrea
Canada5062 Posts
On September 09 2007 09:25 orangedude wrote: Why Multiple Building Select (MBS) Is Essential To The Success of SC2 On a Competitive Level 1) SC2 must have a good interface to attract the initial fanbase who will then spread good word and gather an even larger one. If it didn't, the negative press (from both reviews and word of mouth) will quickly kill off the game's potential and it'll never even be given the chance to form a thriving pro community. So only if the initial player base is kept pleased, will a small percentage of this large pool of newbs become the loyal SC veterans/progamers that will keep the game alive and kicking (i.e. TL.net). As discussed, the option to turn off MBS/automine can also be included in either maps or game types depending on how things turn out. However, my prediction is that very few new SC2 players will make the switch once they are "spoiled" by MBS, and this again severely limits the pro-scene. But the key point here to emphasize is that the large newb pool is a prerequisite to a large competitive community and thus CANNOT be overlooked/ignored. They simply must be catered to, or the second part will not even be possible. Everyone here started off as a noob at one point. To say "screw the noobs, let them learn the hard way like I did" after you have passed that stage already is not only being selfish but also narrow-minded because you're ultimately hurting the game by lowering the potential skill pool. 2) SC2 must have a very high skill curve in both mechanical and mental aspects in order to keep the competitive scene happy. The mechanistic side (high apm) can be achieved in a number of ways, such as emphasizing the importance of micro (the War3 way), but the easiest would be to limit the interface. Back in 1997, when SC was released I believe a lot of these restrictions were unintentional, as even other RTS games from the same period had similar UI limitations. However, now that every single RTS from the past 8 years (including Bliz's own War3) has some form of MBS or equivalent, leaving this out of a game released in 2008+ will feel very artificial and awkward, as it is breaking the RTS standard and will become a huge disappointment to many potential fans (see point 1). Kudos for taking the time to think about the issue and laying out your thoughts. I disagree with your assertion that catering to the newb fanbase is a prerequisite to making SC2 viable as a professional game. Catering to the fanbase will only ensure that the game will be mediocre and forgettable. This isn't theory - this is a practical lesson learned from the WC3 experience. Dumbing down the interface is not the answer. Making the gameplay "user friendly" is not the answer. Better graphics is not the answer. Giving people what they say they want (which is very different from what they actually want) is not the answer. Don't think - just observe the sorry state of affairs that is the WC3 professional scene, even in a gaming madhouse like Korea. Do not cater to anyone. Forget the fanbase. The road to greatness is marked by courage, innovation and loneliness. Greatness is an autocracy, not a democracy. Greatness is disdainful of the conventional. Hear what the professional players and others involved in the professional scene have to say, but otherwise turn an arrogant deaf ear to the newbs. At the end of the day, the newbs will thank you for it. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On September 30 2007 16:06 Aphelion wrote: I don't need proof to make a judgment, especially when so much of yours are based upon absolute conjecture. I have a very strong case based upon probability and correlation, which is more than you can say. No you dont have any proof at all that mbs will destroy starcraft. I can easily counter proove it. Aside from starcraft and warcraft, mbs games are a lot better in competetive gaming than non mbs games. Since there are no other game like starcraft with the same thought in factions and strategy you cant say that it will be bad for starcraft, since in any case were the transition sbs->mbs have occured in other parts of the genre it have been good for the games. Therefore, all your "proofs" are just hypothesises, just like our "Proofs" are also hypothesises. However, since Blizard have already added mbs into their game, they have stated that they want to go with it clearly and have never given a "We might change it" responce ever to this question. Therefore the burden to proove this lies on the anti-mbs side, if you dont proove anything Blizzard will go with mbs. But as i said, since there is no proof of what will happen concerning these UI changes you got nothing, and unless theres some hidden argument not already brought up there is no chance Blizzard will change this untill after heavy playtesting with all negative feeback on it. But if you think that its the pro-mbs side that should "Proove" why its good, then be my guest and play defensively but you wont change the game that way since Blizzard already thinks that its good. Status quo = pro mbs wins, therefore we can play defensively in this argumentation. Also note that if Blizzard had choosed to not include mbs i'd stand by them in that also, if they for some unlikely reason decides to remove it now i wont mourn, i will only ask why and then not question the answer since this is just a game of chance were noone can know for certain whats best. | ||
|
Brutalisk
794 Posts
(IIRC, I might have confused something) | ||
|
Quirion
Portugal55 Posts
so, in short: MBS - Gives room for a more "intelligent" game, with less "useless" clicks. It's dangerous if that "useless" clicks are not transformed into important actions (micro, multitasking, multiple attacks, etc) SBS - Safe way to get a working product. The formula worked on SC and everyone hopes it will work on SC2 the same way. In my opinion, I think blizzard will go for the MBS choice and automining. I just hope they can obtain that extra stuff to keep the learning curve similar to SC. | ||
|
mdainoob
United States51 Posts
Also, personally none of my friend's who have ever tried sc quit/complained about the lack of mbs. Although they might not have gotten really into it it was still enjoyable so I doubt mbs will be as much as a turnoff as some pro-mbs people may think. The only thing I am afraid about are the dumbass game reviewers, but I think these are usually kinda hesitant to give big names low scores, and with the amazing production values put into it i think Sc2 would score high regardless. | ||
|
LonelyMargarita
1845 Posts
On September 30 2007 18:37 Brutalisk wrote: Nal_rA (or was it some other pro?) never mentioned a word about MBS or SBS in the coverage from Blizzcon. If MBS would be so bad as some anti-MBS posters here think it is, he would certainly have brought it up. But he only said that he liked what he saw from SC2. (IIRC, I might have confused something) It's much more likely he didn't even know it existed, and didn't use it. | ||
| ||
