|
On October 03 2007 05:56 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 05:33 IdrA wrote:
his analogy isnt perfect but its not near as bad as you make it seem, you cant simply dismiss it by saying all analogies suck. mbs 'frees' the player from 'mindless mechanical tasks' that people view as unecessary to the game, unessential for play. it allows them to simply play a strategy game without worrying about trivialities. you can make a case that short term planning and comparing the relative merit of all the available moves is the same way in chess, that the game really should be about the overall strategy and long term effects of moves.
and, like he said, look at the effects that has. Yes, but analogies are simply analogies and you can only take them so far. You can only use them to illustrate a point, but never to prove something because there are always huge differences. Chess is a turn-based game, so there is no mechanical portion to the game and 100% of the skill is based on strategy. Even all the short-term plays involve human input and strategical thought, unlike the SBS clicking of buildings which is purely artificially limiting. By making the computer calculate out some of it for you in Advanced Chess, would be reducing the overall skill level in the game, period. That would be analogous to having the computer plan out BO's for you and reminding you when to build the next expansion, or production facility. However, SC is a real-time strategy game and has multiple areas of skill, thus reducing one factor of mechanical skill (which takes zero thought) can be made up in increasing other areas of mechanics (which may actually involve conscious decision-making). I'm not saying it definitely will, but I'm being optimistic that Blizzard will do enough (as they claim) to implement such features in SC2.
just because theyre different aspects of the game doesnt mean they arent comparable.
in chess, all of the moves available for a single turn are there available to you, an average player who understands the game should be able to judge the relative merit of each move given enough time. the real strategy comes into play in linking the individual moves together to achieve various end goals. automating the process of reviewing individual moves just saves time.. right?
just like anyone can go back and click on all their buildings.
just because you think its an unecessary artificial limitation doesnt mean it doesnt have a massive impact on the game. if every player can go 5d6z and have essentially the same unit production capabilities as reach and pusan, reach and pusan are no longer special. you eliminate a third of the game. no one will give a shit about macro players because everyone (whos already a decent player) can macro just as good as anyone else. so youre left with micro and strategy players, the game is no longer so multi dimensional, so widely varied. the main reason bw has survived 10 years is because it is so entertaining and so versatile. every game is different, even 'standard' games vary depending on each players style, because there are 3 main components, each very important, that go into the game. taking away one of those chops off a third of the game, makes it like every other rts where one game is pretty much like the next. and it just so happens that all those other games have had nowhere near the competetive success that bw has. why on earth would you want to remove what makes bw what it is just because bad players dont want to take the time to learn another skill?
|
On October 03 2007 06:07 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 05:33 IdrA wrote:
his analogy isnt perfect but its not near as bad as you make it seem, you cant simply dismiss it by saying all analogies suck. mbs 'frees' the player from 'mindless mechanical tasks' that people view as unecessary to the game, unessential for play. it allows them to simply play a strategy game without worrying about trivialities. you can make a case that short term planning and comparing the relative merit of all the available moves is the same way in chess, that the game really should be about the overall strategy and long term effects of moves.
and, like he said, look at the effects that has. My analogy is a lot better though since mbs doesnt automate any thought processes at all, while instead it makes some actions less demanding on your mechanical skills. And contrary to what some here believes starcraft will still take a lot of mechanical skill to play and starcraft isnt all about mechanical skill either.
no it isnt
his analogy is automating a component of the game that bad players suck at, most decent-good players can do reasonably well, and that the best players can do very well. which is exactly what mbs would do.
whereas your analogy would be like removing multiple unit selection, having to control all of 200 lings one by one. it doesnt add anything to the game (dont say clicking on buildings adds nothing to the game. we've been over that.).
|
On October 03 2007 06:22 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 05:56 orangedude wrote:On October 03 2007 05:33 IdrA wrote:
his analogy isnt perfect but its not near as bad as you make it seem, you cant simply dismiss it by saying all analogies suck. mbs 'frees' the player from 'mindless mechanical tasks' that people view as unecessary to the game, unessential for play. it allows them to simply play a strategy game without worrying about trivialities. you can make a case that short term planning and comparing the relative merit of all the available moves is the same way in chess, that the game really should be about the overall strategy and long term effects of moves.
and, like he said, look at the effects that has. Yes, but analogies are simply analogies and you can only take them so far. You can only use them to illustrate a point, but never to prove something because there are always huge differences. Chess is a turn-based game, so there is no mechanical portion to the game and 100% of the skill is based on strategy. Even all the short-term plays involve human input and strategical thought, unlike the SBS clicking of buildings which is purely artificially limiting. By making the computer calculate out some of it for you in Advanced Chess, would be reducing the overall skill level in the game, period. That would be analogous to having the computer plan out BO's for you and reminding you when to build the next expansion, or production facility. However, SC is a real-time strategy game and has multiple areas of skill, thus reducing one factor of mechanical skill (which takes zero thought) can be made up in increasing other areas of mechanics (which may actually involve conscious decision-making). I'm not saying it definitely will, but I'm being optimistic that Blizzard will do enough (as they claim) to implement such features in SC2. just because theyre different aspects of the game doesnt mean they arent comparable. in chess, all of the moves available for a single turn are there available to you, an average player who understands the game should be able to judge the relative merit of each move given enough time. the real strategy comes into play in linking the individual moves together to achieve various end goals. automating the process of reviewing individual moves just saves time.. right? just like anyone can go back and click on all their buildings. just because you think its an unecessary artificial limitation doesnt mean it doesnt have a massive impact on the game.
I never said they weren't comparable. You are indeed right, that there are many similarities between the two situations, but I still stand by my point here.
On October 03 2007 05:56 orangedude wrote:
Yes, but analogies are simply analogies and you can only take them so far. You can only use them to illustrate a point, but never to prove something because there are always huge differences.
I'm also quite aware that SBS has a massive impact of the game. I appreciate you restating all those reasons for its importance, but I've already read them 100 times and do understand them. However, that still doesn't mean that SBS is not an artificial limitation, because this is a fact. SBS is artificial because there no difference in conscious decision making for SBS vs MBS production, only an extra # of clicks as required by a UI limitation. It's also a fact that the majority of gamers dislike artificial limitations (e.g. but they wouldn't mind the extra clicks required to use a warpgate, because it appears to be most reasonably efficient way to use them).
On the other hand as I pointed out already, the Chess example of automation is eliminating actual strategical thought (even short-term plays require this), which is the entire basis of Chess (a turn-based game requiring no mechanics). Again, this would be like the computer planning out BO's for you and spitting them back at you throughout the game.
|
I think the basic assumption is that starcraft has the ideal combination of strategy and repetitive tasks to make it successful.
Sure it might be "better" according to some people if this is changed, but there are other games for those people.
The main question right now is how should it be the current setup be tweaked to improve upon the original.
|
On October 03 2007 06:40 fight_or_flight wrote:
I think the basic assumption is that starcraft has the ideal combination of strategy and repetitive tasks to make it successful.
Sure it might be "better" according to some people if this is changed, but there are other games for those people.
The main question right now is how should it be the current setup be tweaked to improve upon the original.
Very few people are arguing that it would be better if it was changed (read the OP). Most arguments are centered on the fact that it might not be that much worse competitively as imagined by some people, but it would at the same time appeal to a much greater audience out there and produce a much larger competitive scene as a result. Basically it's a tradeoff, and I believe the benefits of the second part (attracting more pros) outweighs the disadvantages of the first.
|
On October 03 2007 06:37 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 06:22 IdrA wrote:On October 03 2007 05:56 orangedude wrote:On October 03 2007 05:33 IdrA wrote:
his analogy isnt perfect but its not near as bad as you make it seem, you cant simply dismiss it by saying all analogies suck. mbs 'frees' the player from 'mindless mechanical tasks' that people view as unecessary to the game, unessential for play. it allows them to simply play a strategy game without worrying about trivialities. you can make a case that short term planning and comparing the relative merit of all the available moves is the same way in chess, that the game really should be about the overall strategy and long term effects of moves.
and, like he said, look at the effects that has. Yes, but analogies are simply analogies and you can only take them so far. You can only use them to illustrate a point, but never to prove something because there are always huge differences. Chess is a turn-based game, so there is no mechanical portion to the game and 100% of the skill is based on strategy. Even all the short-term plays involve human input and strategical thought, unlike the SBS clicking of buildings which is purely artificially limiting. By making the computer calculate out some of it for you in Advanced Chess, would be reducing the overall skill level in the game, period. That would be analogous to having the computer plan out BO's for you and reminding you when to build the next expansion, or production facility. However, SC is a real-time strategy game and has multiple areas of skill, thus reducing one factor of mechanical skill (which takes zero thought) can be made up in increasing other areas of mechanics (which may actually involve conscious decision-making). I'm not saying it definitely will, but I'm being optimistic that Blizzard will do enough (as they claim) to implement such features in SC2. just because theyre different aspects of the game doesnt mean they arent comparable. in chess, all of the moves available for a single turn are there available to you, an average player who understands the game should be able to judge the relative merit of each move given enough time. the real strategy comes into play in linking the individual moves together to achieve various end goals. automating the process of reviewing individual moves just saves time.. right? just like anyone can go back and click on all their buildings. just because you think its an unecessary artificial limitation doesnt mean it doesnt have a massive impact on the game. I never said they weren't comparable. You are indeed right, that there are many similarities between the two situations, but I still stand by my point here. Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 05:56 orangedude wrote:
Yes, but analogies are simply analogies and you can only take them so far. You can only use them to illustrate a point, but never to prove something because there are always huge differences. I'm also quite aware that SBS has a massive impact of the game. I appreciate you restating all those reasons for its importance, but I've already read them 100 times and do understand them. However, that still doesn't mean that SBS is not an artificial limitation, because this is a fact. SBS is artificial because there no difference in conscious decision making for SBS vs MBS production, only an extra # of clicks as required by a UI limitation. It's also a fact that the majority of gamers dislike artificial limitations (e.g. but they wouldn't mind the extra clicks required to use a warpgate, because it appears to be most reasonably efficient way to use them). On the other hand as I pointed out already, the Chess example of automation is eliminating actual strategical thought (even short-term plays require this), which is the entire basis of Chess (a turn-based game requiring no mechanics). Again, this would be like the computer planning out BO's for you and spitting them back at you throughout the game.
.....
so you acknowledge that sbs has a massive impact on the game, and you acknowledge the reasons it is important, and realize that removing it would have a negative effect on the game..
but you disagree with it just because its an artificial limitation?
who fucking cares if its an artificial limitation, it has a massively positive effect on the game.
you focus too much on whether or not something is thought based, that isnt necessarily relevant to the impact on the game, which is what matters in the long run. in both the chess and bw example, mbs and computer assistance are automating processes that bad people suck at, good people are decent at, and great people are near perfect at. and in both cases it removes a whole lot of diversity from the game and greatly shrinks the differential between good and bad players.
now of course, the bad players like that. it makes it easier for them to beat good players, or become good players themselves. but for a game that is intended for competetive play (so they say), and has the potential to revolutionize non korean competetive gaming (if its done right), that is fucking horrible. to take something intended for competetive play and remove the competetiveness... not that smart.
|
On October 03 2007 06:54 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 06:40 fight_or_flight wrote:
I think the basic assumption is that starcraft has the ideal combination of strategy and repetitive tasks to make it successful.
Sure it might be "better" according to some people if this is changed, but there are other games for those people.
The main question right now is how should it be the current setup be tweaked to improve upon the original. Very few people are arguing that it would be better if it was changed (read the OP). Most arguments are centered on the fact that it might not be that much worse competitively as imagined by some people, but it would at the same time appeal to a much greater audience out there and produce a much larger competitive scene as a result. Basically it's a tradeoff, and I believe the benefits of the second part (attracting more pros) outweighs the disadvantages of the first.
yes, it would be alot worse. as has been stated many times. even if you refuse to believe it makes the game easier, and it would, you cannot argue that it would kill the diversity of the game at high levels.
as it stands now, top players can choose to focus more on micro, more on macro, or more on strategy (with the overall goal of perfecting all 3). oov and pusan and whatnot devote the majority of their attention to unit production, at the sacrifice of micro in alot of cases. oov's mm micro was notoriously bad, even during his period of dominance, pusan is known for sending near-unmicroed streams of zealots.
and then you have boxer who builds up 2k minerals microing 1 small group of mm to take out 2 expos.
or upmagic, who has mediocre micro and macro but does off the wall shit that catches his opponents off guard and wins him games anyway.
the fact that players can play so differently and still be so successful is what makes the korean pro scene, it keeps the game interesting even after 10 years. the fact that people have been playing professionally for 9 years and every game is still different, that play is not standardized and nearing overall perfection, is what keeps it interesting, what makes it playable on such a high level. making it so everyone can macro as well as oov and pusan hurts that diversity, severely. it essentially removes a third of it. you cannot argue that that will not have a MAJOR impact on the game.
|
On October 03 2007 06:54 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 06:40 fight_or_flight wrote:
I think the basic assumption is that starcraft has the ideal combination of strategy and repetitive tasks to make it successful.
Sure it might be "better" according to some people if this is changed, but there are other games for those people.
The main question right now is how should it be the current setup be tweaked to improve upon the original. Very few people are arguing that it would be better if it was changed (read the OP). Most arguments are centered on the fact that it might not be that much worse competitively as imagined by some people, but it would at the same time appeal to a much greater audience out there and produce a much larger competitive scene as a result. Basically it's a tradeoff, and I believe the benefits of the second part (attracting more pros) outweighs the disadvantages of the first.
Lets say SC was at 100/100 in gameplay and 0/100 in terms of popularity with noobs.
I wouldn't countenance a change to 99/100 in game play and 100/100 in terms of popularity with noobs.
|
An analogy is simple an analogy.
It seems to me that calculation in chess and controlling bases and units in SC are quite comparable in how important they are and what role they play in the whole range of different kind of skills the game requires.
Calculation in chess is the core skill of the game. Controlling your units and buildings is the core skill of Starcraft.
|
On October 03 2007 06:54 orangedude wrote:
Very few people are arguing that it would be better if it was changed (read the OP). Most arguments are centered on the fact that it might not be that much worse competitively as imagined by some people, but it would at the same time appeal to a much greater audience out there and produce a much larger competitive scene as a result. Basically it's a tradeoff, and I believe the benefits of the second part (attracting more pros) outweighs the disadvantages of the first.
I think it would be better competitively with MBS. I want the game to have more strategic skill and less physical skill - MBS does this. And I think it would create a better and more interesting competitive scene if it was this way.
A lot of people are thinking that implementing MBS will make skill levels max out. This is just wrong - a game needs hardly any complexity for there to be nearly unlimited skill. Look at how simple chess is - hell look at how simple donkey kong is (and it's vs a computer) and people are still getting better at it to this day. SC2 will be way more complex than either of these even if you implemented every noob friendly ui improvement you could think of and played the game on slow speed. There's no chance that someone will be able to play perfectly and so there's always going to be a skill differential between two players.
|
On October 03 2007 07:56 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 06:54 orangedude wrote:On October 03 2007 06:40 fight_or_flight wrote:
I think the basic assumption is that starcraft has the ideal combination of strategy and repetitive tasks to make it successful.
Sure it might be "better" according to some people if this is changed, but there are other games for those people.
The main question right now is how should it be the current setup be tweaked to improve upon the original. Very few people are arguing that it would be better if it was changed (read the OP). Most arguments are centered on the fact that it might not be that much worse competitively as imagined by some people, but it would at the same time appeal to a much greater audience out there and produce a much larger competitive scene as a result. Basically it's a tradeoff, and I believe the benefits of the second part (attracting more pros) outweighs the disadvantages of the first. Lets say SC was at 100/100 in gameplay and 0/100 in terms of popularity with noobs. I wouldn't countenance a change to 99/100 in game play and 100/100 in terms of popularity with noobs.
Well then, I'm glad you weren't in charge of Blizzard over the past 10 years, cause they wouldn't still be around today making an SC2 if they had followed that kind of mindset. You gotta remember that Blizzard is still a business first and foremost, and are not making the game solely for the pro-gaming scene, although it would be awesome if they were 100% focused on that. Their magic comes following the "easy to learn, difficult to master" philosophy and by making their games more polished than any other in the world.
|
easy to learn, difficult to master?
mbs does neither
someone learning the game is not aware of how much he has to do or going so fast that the difference between 5z and clickzclickzclickzclickz even matters for him.
and it makes it easier to master, for obvious reasons.
where mbs makes the most difference is the mediocre player who has started to learn whats going on and has a general idea of what to do but cant accomplish it, mbs allows them to catch up with the better players.
so really its
"irrelevant to learning, easier to master"
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 03 2007 09:18 Gobol wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 06:54 orangedude wrote:
Very few people are arguing that it would be better if it was changed (read the OP). Most arguments are centered on the fact that it might not be that much worse competitively as imagined by some people, but it would at the same time appeal to a much greater audience out there and produce a much larger competitive scene as a result. Basically it's a tradeoff, and I believe the benefits of the second part (attracting more pros) outweighs the disadvantages of the first. I think it would be better competitively with MBS. I want the game to have more strategic skill and less physical skill - MBS does this. And I think it would create a better and more interesting competitive scene if it was this way. A lot of people are thinking that implementing MBS will make skill levels max out. This is just wrong - a game needs hardly any complexity for there to be nearly unlimited skill. Look at how simple chess is - hell look at how simple donkey kong is (and it's vs a computer) and people are still getting better at it to this day. SC2 will be way more complex than either of these even if you implemented every noob friendly ui improvement you could think of and played the game on slow speed. There's no chance that someone will be able to play perfectly and so there's always going to be a skill differential between two players.
Ugh, getting tired of repeating this one, but I'll do it once more:
Player A is playing player B.
Player A's SC Skillset is as follows:
Macro (physical) - 5
Micro - 5
Theory (strategy, knowledge of how the game works etc) - 5
Player B
Macro (physical) - 3
Micro - 5
Theory - 5
Suddenly with MBS the edge that A has on B in macro is going to be waaaaaaaaaaaay smaller, I'm not saying it will neccessarily make Player B a 5 in macro, but it's going to decrease the game.
Now A and B are already pretty evenly matched, B is going to take games from A - MBS or no MBS. But I'm of the opinion that the increased "variance" that comes from removing an aspect of the game where someone can dominate their opponent, is a bad thing.
|
On October 03 2007 09:42 IdrA wrote:
easy to learn, difficult to master?
mbs does neither
someone learning the game is not aware of how much he has to do or going so fast that the difference between 5z and clickzclickzclickzclickz even matters for him.
and it makes it easier to master, for obvious reasons.
where mbs makes the most difference is the mediocre player who has started to learn whats going on and has a general idea of what to do but cant accomplish it, mbs allows them to catch up with the better players.
so really its
"irrelevant to learning, easier to master"
Oh really, MBS doesn't make SC easier to learn? Why don't you poll 100 random gamers and ask their opinion on that. Part of learning the game is becoming efficient with macro you know.
|
Seems to me that having to spend less time clicking production buildings will only intensify the game in other ways. It also seems like a reasonable solution to the problem of having to choose whether you want to hotkey units (which takes 6 groups on average late game as P/T) or hotkey production buildings - which isn't even an option late game as T when you have comsats and units keyed.
One thing that I do wonder about though is the logic that will go into MBS in a situation where... say you have racked up 2000 minerals in a fight and have two groups of ten gateways, and you hit one group to start one unit type, and the other for a different unit type. But what if half the gates are already making units? Will the unused gates get activated or will it go down the list, stacking units in queue in the first gates of the groups?
I am wondering how much attention will be required as a result of MBS to make sure the right units are building in the right places. And what if you only have 1000 minerals, but 2 groups of 10 gates, and you need zeals and goons? Do you just make 10 zeals, even though you maybe need 6 zeals and 4 goons to join a battle right away? You're going to have to either put fewer gates in your groups to make sure you can spread your spending or you'll have to manually click the gates.
It will still require macro skill, just in a different way, maybe with less mass clicking but with more attention to what's building where and how many.
|
no, becoming efficient is about becoming good at the game
figuring out what you're supposed to do in the first place is learning the game.
|
You're list is obviously completely arbitrary though. You could put anything on that list and almost every feature in any game would decrease the value of something. For example:
Player A Skillset:
Micro - 5
Theory - 5
Clicking agility - 2
Juggling ability - 10
Player B Skillset:
Micro - 5
Theory - 5
Clicking agility - 15
Juggling ability - 5
By allowing you to select 12 units in SC1 (instead of 4 in wc2? I never played the game) the edge that B has over A is waaaaaaaaaaaay smaller because suddenly A can control his army almost as well as this freak who can click every unit on the screen in half a second.
And the stupid example of juggling ability the edge A has over B in this regard is completely reduced to 0 in SC1, SC2 and every game.
The arguement just doesn't work. The whole point of MBS is that it does reduce this skill. This does not imply that the skill gap between players reduces though.
|
On October 03 2007 10:17 IdrA wrote:
no, becoming efficient is about becoming good at the game
figuring out what you're supposed to do in the first place is learning the game.
The learning process IS becoming good at the game up to a certain point. That requires becoming efficient to a certain degree, for example, to be able to beat the AI in a match. Please don't pick at my semantics. If you try asking some other gamers, they would tell you that MBS would make the early learning curve smoother.
On October 03 2007 07:08 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 06:37 orangedude wrote:On October 03 2007 06:22 IdrA wrote:On October 03 2007 05:56 orangedude wrote:On October 03 2007 05:33 IdrA wrote:
his analogy isnt perfect but its not near as bad as you make it seem, you cant simply dismiss it by saying all analogies suck. mbs 'frees' the player from 'mindless mechanical tasks' that people view as unecessary to the game, unessential for play. it allows them to simply play a strategy game without worrying about trivialities. you can make a case that short term planning and comparing the relative merit of all the available moves is the same way in chess, that the game really should be about the overall strategy and long term effects of moves.
and, like he said, look at the effects that has. Yes, but analogies are simply analogies and you can only take them so far. You can only use them to illustrate a point, but never to prove something because there are always huge differences. Chess is a turn-based game, so there is no mechanical portion to the game and 100% of the skill is based on strategy. Even all the short-term plays involve human input and strategical thought, unlike the SBS clicking of buildings which is purely artificially limiting. By making the computer calculate out some of it for you in Advanced Chess, would be reducing the overall skill level in the game, period. That would be analogous to having the computer plan out BO's for you and reminding you when to build the next expansion, or production facility. However, SC is a real-time strategy game and has multiple areas of skill, thus reducing one factor of mechanical skill (which takes zero thought) can be made up in increasing other areas of mechanics (which may actually involve conscious decision-making). I'm not saying it definitely will, but I'm being optimistic that Blizzard will do enough (as they claim) to implement such features in SC2. just because theyre different aspects of the game doesnt mean they arent comparable. in chess, all of the moves available for a single turn are there available to you, an average player who understands the game should be able to judge the relative merit of each move given enough time. the real strategy comes into play in linking the individual moves together to achieve various end goals. automating the process of reviewing individual moves just saves time.. right? just like anyone can go back and click on all their buildings. just because you think its an unecessary artificial limitation doesnt mean it doesnt have a massive impact on the game. I never said they weren't comparable. You are indeed right, that there are many similarities between the two situations, but I still stand by my point here. On October 03 2007 05:56 orangedude wrote:
Yes, but analogies are simply analogies and you can only take them so far. You can only use them to illustrate a point, but never to prove something because there are always huge differences. I'm also quite aware that SBS has a massive impact of the game. I appreciate you restating all those reasons for its importance, but I've already read them 100 times and do understand them. However, that still doesn't mean that SBS is not an artificial limitation, because this is a fact. SBS is artificial because there no difference in conscious decision making for SBS vs MBS production, only an extra # of clicks as required by a UI limitation. It's also a fact that the majority of gamers dislike artificial limitations ( e.g. but they wouldn't mind the extra clicks required to use a warpgate, because it appears to be most reasonably efficient way to use them). On the other hand as I pointed out already, the Chess example of automation is eliminating actual strategical thought (even short-term plays require this), which is the entire basis of Chess (a turn-based game requiring no mechanics). Again, this would be like the computer planning out BO's for you and spitting them back at you throughout the game. who fucking cares if its an artificial limitation
Ask Blizzard that. I think this is the #1 question that they go through when designing the UI.
On October 03 2007 07:08 IdrA wrote:
you focus too much on whether or not something is thought based, that isnt necessarily relevant to the impact on the game, which is what matters in the long run. in both the chess and bw example, mbs and computer assistance are automaticing processes that bad people suck at, good people are decent at, and great people are near perfect at. and in both cases it removes a whole lot of diversity from the game and greatly shrinks the differential between good and bad players.
Whether something is thought based or not really does matter more than you think. It's the reason why you can't have auto-micro or auto-macro, because a human can simply do something that takes thought better than the computer 9 times out of 10. That's why you can easily outmicro the computer AI in SC and War3, no matter how complex it is. Also, people like to feel in control of the game, so automating any area that takes human thought would make it feel like the game is in control instead.
On October 03 2007 07:08 IdrA wrote:
but for a game that is intended for competetive play (so they say), and has the potential to revolutionize non korean competetive gaming (if its done right), that is fucking horrible. to take something intended for competetive play and remove the competetiveness... not that smart.
but for a game that has the potential to revolutionize non-Korean competitive gaming (if it's done right), it would never happen if it frustrated potential pros and caused them to ditch the game before reaching a competitive level. That is fucking horrible. To take something intended to expand the competitive scene, but fail to attract new talent.... not that smart.
Look, all I'm saying is that there's two sides to this MBS coin. No one knows for sure which is going to have a bigger impact on the pro-scene. We can all theorize about the possible negative consequences of having it in SC2, but it's not black and white right now. We also aren't even close to a feature-complete version of SC2 as the Blizzcon build was a pre-pre alpha build.
I am going to be optimistic about MBS and hope that Blizzard designs SC2 ground-up with it in mind. You are free to believe otherwise and that would be your opinion, but until beta comes and SC2 is indeed shown to be too shallow to be played competitively, neither of us are right. I am taking a wait-and-see approach for now.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 03 2007 10:22 Gobol wrote:
You're list is obviously completely arbitrary though. You could put anything on that list and almost every feature in any game would decrease the value of something. For example:
Player A Skillset:
Micro - 5
Theory - 5
Clicking agility - 2
Juggling ability - 10
Player B Skillset:
Micro - 5
Theory - 5
Clicking agility - 15
Juggling ability - 5
By allowing you to select 12 units in SC1 (instead of 4 in wc2? I never played the game) the edge that B has over A is waaaaaaaaaaaay smaller because suddenly A can control his army almost as well as this freak who can click every unit on the screen in half a second.
And the stupid example of juggling ability the edge A has over B in this regard is completely reduced to 0 in SC1, SC2 and every game.
The arguement just doesn't work. The whole point of MBS is that it does reduce this skill. This does not imply that the skill gap between players reduces though.
Lol yes it does reduce the skill gap.
Just as that ridiculous juggling thing does, but you have to find a balance, I think MBS is most likely taking it too far.
Btw, SC2 has no maximum unit selection cap, which I haven't complained about much cause I don't think it's going to have as big of an impact as you'll probably still need to key your units in several groups to be effective. With MBS it suddenly becomes by far superior to anything else in the late game.
Wc2 had a max selection cap of 9 I think.
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On October 02 2007 02:29 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 01:13 Fen wrote:On October 02 2007 01:01 xtian15 wrote:
Blizzard will improve the UI to the point that the battle is won in the battlefield (4 expansions attacked all at the same time with drop pods in the main base SCV line as diversion while units are being produced in 4 baracks and 2 factories for a follow up attack force or a defensive force against a possible counter-attack) rather than in the ability to continually produce marines on 3 barracks while microing one or at three, two attacks.... Actually I hope this doesn't happen. It will destroy progaming. Its important for the audience to be able to work out whats going on. Seeing as they only get to have 1 view throughout the game, itll be impossible to keep up with all the action and games will less interesting to watch. But without multiple front battles you have wc3, and look how that got in pro gaming... The most exciting moments of starcraft is the multiple front battles were things happen at more than one place at once really, the commentators are able to move around the map through the attack locations and explain what happens. Even macro happens at atleast 2 points at any one time, in each players base.
xtian15 or Klockan3 answer me please.
On October 03 2007 01:06 IntoTheWow wrote:
You already have multiple front battles in SC1. I don't see how MBS is going to help with them.
The point of attacking in different places at the same time is that your opponent can't keep all the attacks away (unless some pros who sometimes are prepared for them).
If you can check all the places, what would be the purpose of dividing your army knowing that your enemy has no a higher chance of stopping it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
