EPTWhy MBS Is Essential To a Competitive SC2 - Page 32
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
| ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
On October 03 2007 11:02 BlackStar wrote: 'Clicking agility' is not part of SC. Sure it is. So is typing agility. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On October 03 2007 10:24 orangedude wrote: 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. its not semantics.. learning is about figuring out whats going on, you dont care about doing something a few seconds faster when you dont know what kind of units you're supposed to make. Ask Blizzard that. I think this is the #1 question that they go through when designing the UI. i doubt it, and it really shouldnt be. there are artificial limitations all over the game, all for the purpose of making the game playable/fun/challenging. you cant see the entire map, you can only make 200 supply, etc. artificial limitations is a loaded term anyway, you're trying to make it sound like its a bad thing. the limitations are put in place to make the game better. 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. no, you're missing the point. you focus too much on the minor(insignificant) details instead of the end outcome. thats the same reason you get hung up on 'artificial limitations' even though their effect on the game is obviously positive. in terms of this case it really is irrelevant if its thought based because both actions would have roughly the same outcome. basic analysis of moves is something all decent chess players can do, at varying levels. just like macro is something all decent bw players can do, at varying levels. it doesnt matter, at all, what the defining characteristic is in determining how good they are. it only matter that automating it would make everyone very good at it, and that both things have significant effects on how the game is played, so the end results are the same either way. 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. of course theres two sides, there wouldnt be an argument otherwise. but its not true that we cant know what will have a bigger impact. fact is ONE game has formed the basis for a substantial, long term progaming scene. lack of mbs is, in no small part, responsible for that. the reasoning has been explained already and neither you nor any other pro-mbs person has tried to refute it, hell you even left that part out while quoting me. so you can either address that or stop saying that we have no way of knowing what mbs might do to the game. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 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. he just simplified the list to make the point. assuming everything else stays the same, macro is the only thing mbs will effect. obviously it will allow bad people to macro better, since they dont have to do as much to achieve good results, and it wont change anything for good people since they already macro well. everything else constant (which is a reasonable assumption since we are only talking about mbs), obviously the skill gap reduces if the bad player becomes better and the good player stays the same. | ||
|
potchip
Australia260 Posts
On October 03 2007 11:24 IdrA wrote: he just simplified the list to make the point. assuming everything else stays the same, macro is the only thing mbs will effect. obviously it will allow bad people to macro better, since they dont have to do as much to achieve good results, and it wont change anything for good people since they already macro well. everything else constant (which is a reasonable assumption since we are only talking about mbs), obviously the skill gap reduces if the bad player becomes better and the good player stays the same. I beg to differ. Moving to MBS will not just make the macro aspect easier. It is all good to say 'everything else being equal' but just like all simplified theoretical frameworks there are also the 'assumptions' that allows this simplification. Many has already touched the notion that there's a balance between macro and micro, which is situation dependent, and to a large extent is reliant on the player's better judgement in a given situation. What MBS will do is shift the balance somewhat, so that at certain situations macro becomes more important because there's less cost to accomplish the same task. True, MBS may reduce the skill difference, as some of you fear. An alternative and no less justified 'advantage' would be to provide a more 'spectactor friendly' game since it will be easier as a whole to produce while microing => ensuring more frequent battles and less 'rebuilding phases. These are however speculations and no one side is better than the other, and certainly basing experience on starcraft is not valid given sc2 is a DIFFERENT game. (though many of us seems to assume sc2 will be mostly the same game) May I add the wc3 comparison as a failure of MBS is not valid either (in case someone will brought this up to refute this post). The macro element of WC3 is a lot simpler due to the lower limit and army dynamics is vastly different to sc. WC3 has the centralized army theme that applies to sc late game stalemates. Its failing is not a direct result of MBS because MBS should have a smaller effect on WC3 than on a SCesque game. | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
There will be new limitations, they will just be different. Don't worry. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
[QUOTE]On October 03 2007 11:24 IdrA wrote: he just simplified the list to make the point. assuming everything else stays the same, macro is the only thing mbs will effect. obviously it will allow bad people to macro better, since they dont have to do as much to achieve good results, and it wont change anything for good people since they already macro well. everything else constant (which is a reasonable assumption since we are only talking about mbs), obviously the skill gap reduces if the bad player becomes better and the good player stays the same. [/QUOTE] I beg to differ. Moving to MBS will not just make the macro aspect easier. It is all good to say 'everything else being equal' but just like all simplified theoretical frameworks there are also the 'assumptions' that allows this simplification. [quote] its also all good to say 'mbs will not just make the macro aspect easier' say that all you want it still will [quote] Many has already touched the notion that there's a balance between macro and micro, which is situation dependent, and to a large extent is reliant on the player's better judgement in a given situation. What MBS will do is shift the balance somewhat, so that at certain situations macro becomes more important because there's less cost to accomplish the same task.[/quote] shifting the balance in itself is a problem, bw has a very delicate balance between macro/micro/strategy, and it works well. why fuck with it for the very very minor gain of appeasing reviewers who dont know what theyre talking about [quote] True, MBS may reduce the skill difference, as some of you fear. An alternative and no less justified 'advantage' would be to provide a more 'spectactor friendly' game since it will be easier as a whole to produce while microing => ensuring more frequent battles and less 'rebuilding phases. These are however speculations and no one side is better than the other, and certainly basing experience on starcraft is not valid given sc2 is a DIFFERENT game. (though many of us seems to assume sc2 will be mostly the same game) [/QUOTE] its not a matter of mbs providing an advantage, everyone has it so obviously thats not the case. the concern with mbs making macro easier is that it lessens the skill gap. right now pros already dont need a 'rebuilding phase', because they are capable of macroing while managing armies and harassing and whatnot. mbs will allow the average player to do the same thing, lessening the gap between pro and newb(which is bad for competetive gameplay, as already discussed) | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On October 03 2007 12:10 fight_or_flight wrote: I think most of the limitations from bw are there because the game came out 10 years ago and it had to run on those computers. There will be new limitations, they will just be different. Don't worry. they are not technological limitations, there is nothing about computers from 1998 that could not have supported mbs they are limitations imposed, purposefully, by the game designer to effect the way the game is played. | ||
|
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
On October 03 2007 11:16 IdrA wrote: its not semantics.. learning is about figuring out whats going on, you dont care about doing something a few seconds faster when you dont know what kind of units you're supposed to make. I think its pretty clear that MBS results in a smoother early learning curve. Even the lowliest noob knows that in order to win, you have to construct a large army (macro). Part of that macro is clicking on buildings and ordering those units to be built. If you make it easier for the low-skill noob to construct a decent army in order to combat the AI, the game becomes more friendly and he'll have an easier time to then go on to further learn the intricacies of the game. I think we are just disagreeing on the subtle meanings of the word "learn", so I don't want to argue about this anymore. On October 03 2007 11:16 IdrA wrote: i doubt it, and it really shouldnt be. there are artificial limitations all over the game, all for the purpose of making the game playable/fun/challenging. you cant see the entire map, you can only make 200 supply, etc. artificial limitations is a loaded term anyway, you're trying to make it sound like its a bad thing. the limitations are put in place to make the game better. These other artificial limitations are rules of the game, just like how a unit's HP is a rule in the game. They are understandable and can be easily explained to most players. However, even they can still cause problems when taken too far exactly because they are artificial in nature (e.g. many people hated the low supply cap and unit upkeep in War3). Taking away MBS from SC2 when every other RTS includes it is an artificial limitation of the UI, and it just won't make sense to most players. Telling them "we're doing it for the SC veterans" isn't going to make them any happier. It'll just sound even more like a cop-out to them. They don't understand SC to the extent that we do. On October 03 2007 11:16 IdrA wrote: no, you're missing the point. you focus too much on the minor(insignificant) details instead of the end outcome. thats the same reason you get hung up on 'artificial limitations' even though their effect on the game is obviously positive. in terms of this case it really is irrelevant if its thought based because both actions would have roughly the same outcome. basic analysis of moves is something all decent chess players can do, at varying levels. just like macro is something all decent bw players can do, at varying levels. it doesnt matter, at all, what the defining characteristic is in determining how good they are. it only matter that automating it would make everyone very good at it, and that both things have significant effects on how the game is played, so the end results are the same either way. Insignificant and irrelevant is your opinion. Regardless of the positive outcome, most people won't see this or understand why on earth this could be positive and you'll have a tough time trying to convince them of this. They'll just think "This archaic interface won't even let me control my production properly. Blizzard is so behind the times", and not give the game a proper chance. To illustrate why artificial limitations matter, I don't think anyone will ever complain about the difficulty of using warp-gates effectively. They take just as many clicks as the original SC macro and even require you to position the units on the battlefield. However, this seems reasonable because all of those steps are pretty much required and don't feel like the game is trying to limit you. People being turned away, because they dislike artificial UI limitations is a negative outcome. You are completely ignoring this and continue to argue only your side. of course theres two sides, there wouldnt be an argument otherwise. but its not true that we cant know what will have a bigger impact. fact is ONE game has formed the basis for a substantial, long term progaming scene. Only in Korea. In fact, War3 has a bigger pro-gaming scene outside of Korea than SC, despite all of its disadvantages as a spectator sport. lack of mbs is, in no small part, responsible for that. the reasoning has been explained already and neither you nor any other pro-mbs person has tried to refute it, hell you even left that part out while quoting me. so you can either address that or stop saying that we have no way of knowing what mbs might do to the game. Plenty of people have tried to refute it, but I'm not trying to here. I'm looking at the OTHER SIDE, the necessity of MBS in a game released today to capture and maintain interest in SC2 in order to expand the pro-scene. You continue to ignore this and leave it out of your response yet again and haven't even tried to refute it. This could just as easily have a larger positive impact than the negative impact of removing MBS. You can either address that or stop repeating the same argument for the 100th time, as I already understand it and I'm tired of reading it again. It's the magnitudes of these these two pros and cons that no one really knows for sure, and why I am again taking a wait and see approach. If you can't accept the fact that I have a different opinion on this than you, then I don't know what more I can say. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
Okay, but these other artificial limitations are rules of the game, just like how a unit's HP is a rule in the game. They are understandable and can be easily explained to most players. However, even they can still cause problems when taken too far exactly because they are artificial in nature (e.g. many people hated the low supply cap and unit upkeep in War3). Taking away MBS from SC2 when every other RTS includes it is an artificial limitation of the UI, and it just won't make sense to most players. Telling them "we're doing it for the SC veterans" isn't going to make them any happier. It'll just sound even more like a cop-out to them. They don't understand SC to the extent that we do. well then they can give a real answer "we're including it because its a defining feature of the starcraft franchise and it adds depth and entertainment value to the gameplay" if it is a good game and it gets sponsor money behind it the competetive rts players will move to it. if a competetive scene develops people will play the game regardless of the interface. Insignificant and irrelevant is your opinion. Regardless of the positive outcome, most people won't see this or understand why on earth this could be positive and you'll have a tough time trying a tough time convincing them of this. They'll just think "This archaic interface won't even let me control my production properly. Blizzard is so behind the times", and maybe not give it their full effort. To illustrate why artificial limitations matter, I don't think anyone will ever complain about the difficulty of using warp-gates effectively. They take just as many clicks as the original SC macro and even require you to position the units on the battlefield. However, this seems reasonable because all of those steps are pretty much required and don't feel like the game is trying to limit you. no, in the case we were discussing irrelevance is not an opinion. it is a fact. i demonstrated why i was correct, you provided no argument as to why it was relevant, besides saying that it was. People being turned away, because they dislike artificial UI limitations is a negative outcome. You are completely ignoring this and continue to argue only your side. once again, catering to retards or newbs is not going to get the game anywhere except the discount bin 2 months after its release. competetive players will play if its a good game and sponsors get behind it. if a competetive scene develops lots more players will start playing, regardless of a slightly modified interface from what theyre used to. Only in Korea. In fact, War3 has a bigger pro-gaming scene outside of Korea than SC. that matters why? in absolute terms war3 progaming is nothing compared to korean progaming. starcraft has shown that it can support a mainstream entertainment industry. war3 cant. unfortunately starcraft cannot get a foothold outside of korea because no sponsors want to put up money for a 10 year old game. that will be very different for sc2, so either you can make it like sc(a game that has the capability of supporting a real professional gaming industry) except now it will have all the sponsors it wants and so can become something real, or you can make it like war3 and you can have fucking microsoft sponsor it and no one will give a rats ass. Plenty of people have tried to refute it, but I'm not trying to here. I'm looking at the OTHER SIDE, the necessity of MBS in a game released today to capture and maintain interest in SC2 in order to expand the pro-scene, which you continue to ignore and leave out of your response yet again. You haven't even tried to refute it. This could just as easily have a larger positive impact than the negative impact of removing MBS. You can either address that or stop repeating the same argument for the 100th time, as I already understand it and I'm tired of reading it again. It's the magnitudes of these these two pros and cons that no one knows for sure, and why I am again taking a wait and see approach. If you can't accept the fact that I have a different opinion on this than you, then I don't know what more I can say. no, actually. no one has addressed the fact that mbs will decrease diversity. every 'response' to it has danced around it or said that it will be compensated for with vague references to 'multi front battles' and other features starcraft1 gameplay already has. on the other hand, your point HAS been addressed, multiple times. bunches of newbs who play every rts that comes out will not make a pro scene, they will buy their copy of the game, play it once in a while, and forget about it when the next game comes out. competetive players and a game that is actually capable of supporting a progaming industry (by producing entertaining games and being able to accomodate a professional attitude, in terms of skill and whatnot) will make a pro scene, and if you have a popular pro scene your player base will grow more than any newb-friendly features will encourage. just look at how many people play in korea. think that would happen if they didnt have progaming on 2 big tv networks? having opinions is fine. however you post your opinion on a forum that blizzard reads, that means your opinion can effect me, if blizz reads what you post and thinks 'oh cool they like mbs keep it in'. therefore i will argue with you if you post your opinion. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
But even without those caveats to your logic - even assuming your logic is correct, and that a slight dumbing down of the game would greatly increase its e-sports success - I vote no in principle to taking the one really competitive, really successful expert RTS community and compromising it for noobs. With those qualifications and doubts I listed to your logic, its a complete, unequivocal, "hell no". | ||
|
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
On October 03 2007 12:35 IdrA wrote: well then they can give a real answer "we're including it because its a defining feature of the starcraft franchise and it adds depth and entertainment value to the gameplay" if it is a good game and it gets sponsor money behind it the competetive rts players will move to it. if a competetive scene develops people will play the game regardless of the interface. They won't understand this kind of explanation whatsoever. Even if it's the truth, it'll just sound to them like "screw you, we don't care about new players, we just want to satisfy the hardcore crowd". I think 90% of people who bought and played SC don't even know how huge the Korean E-Sports scene really is. On October 03 2007 12:35 IdrA wrote: no, in the case we were discussing irrelevance is not an opinion. it is a fact. i demonstrated why i was correct, you provided no argument as to why it was relevant, besides saying that it was. once again, catering to retards or newbs is not going to get the game anywhere except the discount bin 2 months after its release. competetive players will play if its a good game and sponsors get behind it. if a competetive scene develops lots more players will start playing, regardless of a slightly modified interface from what theyre used to. Did you even read a word of what I wrote? All of it was about why artificial limitations are important, because it leads to a negative outcome. Okay, feel free to continue to ignore my points. On October 03 2007 12:35 IdrA wrote: that matters why? in absolute terms war3 progaming is nothing compared to korean progaming. starcraft has shown that it can support a mainstream entertainment industry. war3 cant. unfortunately starcraft cannot get a foothold outside of korea because no sponsors want to put up money for a 10 year old game. that will be very different for sc2, so either you can make it like sc(a game that has the capability of supporting a real professional gaming industry) except now it will have all the sponsors it wants and so can become something real, or you can make it like war3 and you can have fucking microsoft sponsor it and no one will give a rats ass. War3 can't, because it's a crappy spectator sport. SC2 won't have any of the problems that War3 suffered that caused it to fail in Korea. On October 03 2007 12:35 IdrA wrote: no, actually. no one has addressed the fact that mbs will decrease diversity. every 'response' to it has danced around it or said that it will be compensated for with vague references to 'multi front battles' and other features starcraft1 gameplay already has. The reason I'm not addressing it, is because I'm not trying to focus on the downsides of MBS. I'll leave that up to other people if they choose to do so. For the last time, I'm looking at the OTHER side, the positive side that necessitates MBS in SC2, which you keep ignoring. I've been trying to argue this ever since the OP if you've ever read it. On October 03 2007 12:35 IdrA wrote: on the other hand, your point HAS been addressed, multiple times. It has been addressed, but not when you were responding to me. It has never been proven wrong, because we simply don't know exactly how big of a turnoff a game lacking MBS in 2008-9 will be to new players and potential pros. Much the same way as how we don't know the exact magnitude of the impact of taking out MBS in SC2. On October 03 2007 12:35 IdrA wrote: bunches of newbs who play every rts that comes out will not make a pro scene, they will buy their copy of the game, play it once in a while, and forget about it when the next game comes out. competetive players and a game that is actually capable of supporting a progaming industry (by producing entertaining games and being able to accomodate a professional attitude, in terms of skill and whatnot) will make a pro scene, and if you have a popular pro scene your player base will grow more than any newb-friendly features will encourage. What do you think came first in Korea? The E-Sports scene or the large fanbase of SC noobs? You don't get a huge thriving pro-scene unless you start off with a huge number of newbs with a continued interest in the game. The competitive players will arise naturally, only when given the appropriate game AND a large enough fanbase. BOTH of these are key ingredients to a successful E-Sports scene, and you can't neglect either one. Many modern RTS's fail in the first part, while games like Armies of Exigo fail in the second. Removing MBS would be detrimental to the second part and this is also fact, although the magnitude of this we don't know for sure yet. I believe it will be to a far greater extent than you do, and that's where our opinions differ. On October 03 2007 12:35 IdrA wrote: just look at how many people play in korea. think that would happen if they didnt have progaming on 2 big tv networks? Yes, see you got the cause and effect part of this backwards. Think SC had pro-gaming channels and pro-leagues when it first caught on in Korea? No, it only happened as a consequence of the already large player base. On October 03 2007 12:35 IdrA wrote: having opinions is fine. however you post your opinion on a forum that blizzard reads, that means your opinion can effect me, if blizz reads what you post and thinks 'oh cool they like mbs keep it in'. therefore i will argue with you if you post your opinion. You can argue, but do realize that opinions can differ over areas where neither can solidly win, because there's just not enough concrete evidence on either side right now. It's kind of like the science vs religion debate. However, I have every right to express that I am favoring a wait-and-see approach to MBS and I hope you can respect this. | ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36374 Posts
On October 03 2007 11:02 BlackStar wrote: 'Clicking agility' is not part of SC. "Clicking agility" definitely is a part of SC, just like clicking precision, clicking speed, mouse speed, and keyboard speed is. This isn't an opinion, this is a fact. Your statement is very ignorant and is akin to saying "leg speed is not a part of soccer." Please do not make blanket ignorant statements without sufficient evidence. Making arguments with inferior or incomplete knowledge is just as bad as making incorrect arguments. | ||
|
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
On October 03 2007 13:34 Hot_Bid wrote: "Clicking agility" definitely is a part of SC, just like clicking precision, clicking speed, mouse speed, and keyboard speed is. This isn't an opinion, this is a fact. Your statement is very ignorant and is akin to saying "leg speed is not a part of soccer." Please do not make blanket ignorant statements without sufficient evidence. Making arguments with inferior or incomplete knowledge is just as bad as making incorrect arguments. Hot_Bid, I think he was just trolling. You can feel free to delete his post, the response, and my post here. | ||
|
xtian15
Philippines29 Posts
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" Thats just assuming that there are only two kinds of players, noobs and pro-gamers. I am no pro-gamer but I do care that I can produce units in all my gateways with just "5z" as opposed to clickzclickzclickz etc. Creating zealots on 5 different Gateways on the same time doesn't make the game easier to master...you still have to know where to deploy them, to micro their "lunge" (i forgot what its called) skill, etc. It just makes it more convenient for beginners to quickly build a large army. That's all. MBS, doesn't really affect Pro-gamers but it gives non-pro-gamers (which includes noobs and non-noobs) a chance to play the strategic part of the game without too much sacrifice for the so-called "macro" (0z9z8z7z6z). | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36374 Posts
| ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
| ||
|
potchip
Australia260 Posts
The single most important succes factor for Blizzard RTS (including WC3) was battle.net. Oh, and how many of you would petition to have the right mouse rally 'feature' removed in a future sc patch? It also kind of bridges the gap between newbs and pros. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
On October 03 2007 13:57 potchip wrote: I'm going to make a baseless assertation regarding the MBS and RTS failures argument: The single most important succes factor for Blizzard RTS (including WC3) was battle.net. Oh, and how many of you would petition to have the right mouse rally 'feature' removed in a future sc patch? It also kind of bridges the gap between newbs and pros. I think having graphical representations of the game is bad. Real pros play with binary code. To be serious, I don't use right click. I use 'R' as a matter of habit, and can't get myself to change it. | ||
|
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
On October 03 2007 13:17 Aphelion wrote: Orangedude, I can post a very lengthy rebuttal (which I will when I have time), but the basic impression of your post is that your are saying we should dumb down the only acceptable RTS game for Please do. On October 03 2007 13:17 Aphelion wrote: I do not believe that is necessary as SC2 will have a huge player base anyways, and also I believe that making a e-sports game for noobs is self contradictory. Neither do I believe that SC2 can make a big difference in the non-Korean proscene, as the culture and other factors simply aren't ready for it in the Western world. Making a game accessible to noobs is not self-contradictory. It's one of the foundations of every sport in the world. I'm not going to kid myself here. I'm not expecting SC2 matches to start showing up on my TV anytime soon like in Korea, but that doesn't mean it can't experience a large amount of growth. I think it can at the very least expand and overtake the CS pro-scene if Blizzard does it right. However, again it must attract a large fanbase first of all before this will be possible. On October 03 2007 13:17 Aphelion wrote: But even without those caveats to your logic - even assuming your logic is correct, and that a slight dumbing down of the game would greatly increase its e-sports success - I vote no in principle to taking the one really competitive, really successful expert RTS community and compromising it for noobs. With those qualifications and doubts I listed to your logic, its a complete, unequivocal, "hell no". That's fine if you think this way and I will respect your opinion if you will respect mine. Guess that's a big NO to the "Are you willing?" thread. In the end, it will be Blizzard's decision as to which side to favor. | ||
| ||
