|
On October 03 2007 15:25 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 15:10 ForAdun wrote:
Seriously, this is not a good way to go Aphelion.
I share many of your thoughts but this is just going to get ridiculous now.
You are certainly right. But I am sick of watching him smother the points made by numerous well known players of the community by nitpicking their logical presentation and referring to unprovable and vague ideas. Some of the top players in the game make amazing post after amazing post, drawing from real-life examples of their playing experiences - yet he confounds the argument with thing air and zero substance.
When have I ever nitpicked their logical presentation? I go directly towards the meat, and I always use as many detailed real-life examples as I can. Thin air and zero substance is your opinion, perhaps because you do not agree with me. I can't draw from personal experience because I'm not a pro-gamer, but I can draw from others' experiences. Please don't falsely accuse me of not using logical argument, when I always try to make sure I do. If I have ever committed any logical fallacies, you are welcome to point them out. You also just shrugged away the most respected and intelligent War3 players' opinion like a noob's when I brought it up.
|
On October 03 2007 14:30 MyLostTemple wrote:
With that being said i think it's completely fair to put MBS as a setting for non competitive games. That way players who don't wish to master as many aspects of the game can still play on an easier setting and learn/enjoy the game. I can't possibly imagine newbs will be less impressed or completely turned off by pro players who can't use MBS in their games... if anything they'll be MORE impressed and want to play even more so they can master the game with out the crutch of MBS. if they don't/can't it's no problem since they can just play with friends online. I have yet to see a good argument to why MBS as a setting can't please both crowds and assure SC2's success as an esport and as a pass time game for fun. (and i don't think masturbating the ego of a random newbie is reason enough)
I think it's one possible solution, but it also brings a number of problems. Firstly, the community would be split right off the bat, with possibly every non-hardcore SC player starting off with MBS in the game (99:1?). When looking for games, would you rather play on a ladder with 1000s of people with equal skill level to you or play on a second ladder (with a more difficult UI), with far less due to it being made up of mainly the SC vets? As people get used to MBS, most will likely find it difficult to switch, as they would be used to the higher micro, less macro style of game and simply choose to stick with it.
Anyways, it could still work. I'm just a little bit skeptical if two modes will actually increase the # of pros who actively play SBS much beyond the current numbers in SC. Sponsors will basically go to whichever side has more competition, so you might end up with something like Korea (SBS) vs. rest of world (MBS). That's not necessarily a bad thing, if that's what you want.
On October 03 2007 14:30 MyLostTemple wrote:
also, orangedude, stop asserting that there is NO WAY a pc game magazine couldn't understand Blizzards explanation as to why SC2 needs SBS due to the korean proscene and keeping the game competitive. Any rational person can see this argument as a sound one. and if MBS is kept only as a setting for non competitive games i don't understand how some PC magazine is going to grade SC2 down because easy features like MBS aren't allowed on ladders, these people have brains too. Blizzard could put it in the single player:
easy mode: MBS/auto mining on
hard mode: MBS/auto mining off
I've never asserted that a game magazine couldn't understand Blizzard's explanation. However, the actual people and potential pros playing might not buy it, especially when they're looking for a reason to blame for their losses. Even the competitive players migrating from other games like War3 could be turned away, and that's a very large RTS skill pool that SC2 could be missing out on.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On October 03 2007 15:36 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 15:14 MyLostTemple wrote:On October 03 2007 15:02 orangedude wrote:On October 03 2007 14:45 mensrea wrote:
Orangedude,
1. While I personally believe that MBS will lessen the game, I also acknowledge the possibility that, in the context of SC2, it may also have the opposite effect. Time will tell.
2. You appear to assume that an easier game will be more popular. That is not always the case. And remember: the original SC had no problems whatsoever becoming popular and developing a fanbase without MBS. That is reality, not theory.
3. Your argument that noobs are necessary to create a fanbase for SC2 in order to make the game viable as a professional sport is just silly. You keep beating that dog over the head (which is why I finally decided to address you directly), but it's a patently absurd argument in the context of SC2. SC2 already has a fanbase. It will have a critical mass of players from the get-go regardless of whether MBS is implemented or not. Whether you are for or against MBS, that feature will not determine the formation of a fanbase for SC2. Give me a break.
4. If you had the experience I have speaking with players in PC rooms all over Korea, you would realize that the average non-professional player of the game in that video game madhouse prefers a more difficult game and that nerf features like MBS would be a turnoff for most fans - not a selling point. I am already hearing gripes from the Koreans who have heard about the feature, but have yet to hear any substantial numbers put forth a favorable view of MBS. Anecdotal evidence, yes, but evidence nonetheless.
5. What about those players outside of Korea? They are irrelevant. NBA basketball has a global following precisely because its rules cater to a limited fanbase (fans based in major urban centers in the United States) who are already knowledgeable about the game, who are experienced and who want a game that has standards of excellence that the average person cannot hope to attain. No one wants to see Michael Jordan dunking on a hoop that's been shortened to accomodate the average fan. People outside the core basketball centers (fans in China, South America, Europe, Mongolia, wherever) don't complain - they marvel and aspire. Same deal with any of the major spectator sports with a global fanbase.
For SC pro gaming, Korea is the gold standard. It is the Majors. That is just the way it is. SC 2 should be built with that market in mind - and the rest of the world will follow and, in the end, the fans will thank you for it.
6. If Blizzard is serious about releasing a game designed with professional gaming built into its DNA, then introducing a feature that, at least in isolation (and we have no other way of analysis at this point) makes the game play easier, seems counterintuitive.
Of course, reality is weird. It has a way of confounding logic and disrupting a priori analysis. Reality sets its own rules and determines its own outcomes. So, MBS may, in fact, turn out to be the best thing to happen to the game. Like I said, time will tell.
But, my point is, ORANGEDUDE, you have no rational basis for being so certain. You are too certain of your conclusions and you should not be. I know I'm not.
I hope you do not respond. Best to channel your energies on others. Kudos again for setting out your thoughts to begin with. That's more contribution than most.
3) Indeed, there will be a critical mass of noobs for SC2, but how many of those will stay long enough to go pro? Many could be turned away from competitive play due to lack of MBS. That's my main argument, and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence for this as well. what if the newbs can't go pro? what?... if they can't figure out how to use a keyboard and hotkeys i'm fairly sure they're going to be terrible in other areas as well. Using the keyboard isn't a magical god given gift, you just learn it by playing a lot, just like you do with micro and strategy. Those newbs who wont go pro will still remember SC2 as a challenging mind game that was a great spectator sport. Would you rather those noobs remember SC2 as a challenging mind game or actually play competitively and contribute directly to the pro-scene. A larger scene directly results in more competition, more tournaments, more sponsors, and consequently more skill. Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 15:14 MyLostTemple wrote:
The important thing for an esport to grow is not to get as many progamers as possible, it's to get a game that is incredible to watch and very very difficult to master. Then you get a big fan base because they can be impressed by what's happening. It should be INCREDIBLY hard to become a progamer for SC2, that way it looks even more impressive as an esport.
They are both necessary requirements for a true thriving pro-scene. Tell me, Tasteless, if the exact circumstances in Korea with the large number of net-cafe's and FPS being banned hadn't occurred, do you honestly think SC would have grown to become the successful E-Sports scene we have today? If it was only necessary to have an awesome game like SC (which I agree with) to become a successful E-Sport without attracting a large number of pros, then why has SC not completely dominated all other games outside of Korea including War3, CS, and so on. Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 15:14 MyLostTemple wrote:
I'm sure you'll end up with even more people getting turned away from going pro in SC2 when they start getting raped by blinking stalker micro and rushed by well controlled colossus's. There is more to scare a newb away from going pro at SC2 than only being able to macro from one building at a time. There is a large fundamental difference in being outmicroed by the other player than losing to another because he felt the game was limiting him. In case one, he clearly knows that his opponent was simply a better player and used skill to defeat him. He will accept the loss (if he is a competitive player), because he knows he can improve if he keeps playing and it is entirely his own fault that he has lost. On the other hand, if he thinks the game is at fault, he will not blame himself or the opponent, but only become pissed at the game for having an "archaic interface" designed by Blizzard to favor the SC veterans over any newer players. He will become increasingly frustrated as time goes on, and he may or may not quit playing competitively as a result. This is what happened to someone like aw]nevermind if you read his post. Even though the player is the one truly at fault, it will not seem that way to him, because it is human nature to always find something to place blame on other than himself. That's why you get some bad-mannered players screaming at his opponent for being a "cheesing noob" or "got fucking lucky" whenever he loses to say a proxy-strat, even though it's perfectly legitimate and his own fault for not scouting it.
1) if we had to start hosting SC ladders as BGH only to get more people to play would it really be a good thing? If we had to have more tee ball tournaments instead of baseball ones because everyone can hit a teeball would it really benefit the sports scene? Are these incredibly stubborn players who refuse to learn challenging games really going to contribute to the esports scene? No.
2) you are wrong and misinformed, firstly, SC is not in other major tournaments because of it's out dated graphics, this is what i have been told by SO many people that actually work in the esports scene, and it doesn't surprise me. Esports tournaments outside korea are light years behind right now, if SC1 was remade with SC2's graphics it would be in every esports tournament in the world.
FPS games are not banned in korea, i went to several PC bangs and saw CS being played, i even saw CS on the big screen at the Olympic stadium during WEG. they won't really put FPS games on TV because it's too violent, just like they wont put FPS games on TV anywhere...
3) this is a category you've arbitrarily imposed on the game. the difficulty of micro has just as high a chance of scaring players away as the difficulty of macro, you can not prove otherwise since both require incredible skill to utilize. By your logic we should get rid of the option of rushes all together so new players wont get mad if they lose to fast. I really don't care if stubborn crappy players blame the difficult UI as a reason not to master the game. I have no problem with aw]nevermind playing war3 because the interface is easier. SC is a scary and intimidating game thus making it the ultimate esport, it should stay that way.
Also, i'm growing tired of repeating these arguments and correcting completely incorrect facts in this MBS thread. You realize you didn't even know how to go 4d5d6d on the keyboard when you started this thread. Yet after learning some hand positions i taught you on battle.net you've tossed them aside (like most of tl.nets good arguments against you) and continued babbling about how crucial MBS is with incoherent facts and illogical assertions. This feels much like arguing about golf with a player who never even bothered to hold a golf club right and instead argues that we need a special machine we can program a golf stroke into that will hit the ball for us, and then golf will be improved (when it obviously won't).
i still don't see why MBS can't just be a setting for non competitve play.
|
We're at the point where we're starting to reduce the credibility of the others (e.g. "noob", "no experience", "close-minded") instead of providing real arguments.
This discussion is pretty much dead.
I'll just add that I think the following method would be the best Blizzard can do:
Keep MBS in the game until beta, then test the game thoroughly, and if it turns out to be genuinely bad and there's no way that you could compensate for it, then remove it altogether.
If MBS has to be removed (I hope not, because I like micro much more than macro, but I'll accept it anyway), they could advertise SBS as being an important and good feature easily (by saying that the game needs to be competitive enough etc. blah).
When the reviewers and newbies (who can't play) know this, they'll probably not give SC2 worse ratings because of no MBS.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On October 03 2007 16:04 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 14:30 MyLostTemple wrote:
With that being said i think it's completely fair to put MBS as a setting for non competitive games. That way players who don't wish to master as many aspects of the game can still play on an easier setting and learn/enjoy the game. I can't possibly imagine newbs will be less impressed or completely turned off by pro players who can't use MBS in their games... if anything they'll be MORE impressed and want to play even more so they can master the game with out the crutch of MBS. if they don't/can't it's no problem since they can just play with friends online. I have yet to see a good argument to why MBS as a setting can't please both crowds and assure SC2's success as an esport and as a pass time game for fun. (and i don't think masturbating the ego of a random newbie is reason enough)
I think it's one possible solution, but it also brings a number of problems. Firstly, the community would be split right off the bat, with possibly every non-hardcore SC player starting off with MBS in the game (99:1?). When looking for games, would you rather play on a ladder with 1000s of people with equal skill level to you or play on a second ladder (with a more difficult UI), with far less due to it being made up of mainly the SC vets? As people get used to MBS, most will likely find it difficult to switch, as they would be used to the higher micro, less macro style of game and simply choose to stick with it. Anyways, it could still work. I'm just a little bit skeptical if two modes will actually increase the # of pros who actively play SBS much beyond the current numbers in SC. Sponsors will basically go to whichever side has more competition, so you might end up with something like Korea (SBS) vs. rest of world (MBS). That's not necessarily a bad thing, if that's what you want. Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 14:30 MyLostTemple wrote:
also, orangedude, stop asserting that there is NO WAY a pc game magazine couldn't understand Blizzards explanation as to why SC2 needs SBS due to the korean proscene and keeping the game competitive. Any rational person can see this argument as a sound one. and if MBS is kept only as a setting for non competitive games i don't understand how some PC magazine is going to grade SC2 down because easy features like MBS aren't allowed on ladders, these people have brains too. Blizzard could put it in the single player:
easy mode: MBS/auto mining on
hard mode: MBS/auto mining off I've never asserted that a game magazine couldn't understand Blizzard's explanation. However, the actual people and potential pros playing might not buy it, especially when they're looking for a reason to blame for their losses. Even the competitive players migrating from other games like War3 could be turned away, and that's a very large RTS skill pool that SC2 could be missing out on.
1) ,there are an assload of split communities in SC, ums, bgh, etc, making another one for all the high strung, stubborn UI blaming newbies your talking about won't be a problem. i know many bgh players who find normal maps too hard to play, that's fine. MBS wouldn't be an option at tournaments with my hypothesis because it won't be allowed for competitive play, only casual play. This seem like a failsafe way to keep newbies happy and progamers competitive.
2) I don't think most pc magazines and potential progamers are as blame hungry as you say, true competitive players want challenge (as i see it) and if they can't handle it, they can go play MBS in casual play and still have fun.
|
Blizzard will find a way to make the game more macro intensive while retaining MBS. However if anti-MBS people cannot accept that macro is much more than pressing 0z9z8z7z every few seconds or treat that (0z9z8z7z) as an essential, indispensable part of macro, then I guess both camps should just agree to disagree as the argument just keeps going and going without getting somewhere, anywhere. Which is pretty unfortunate.
Test MBS in beta. Then see if it works or not. Then argue.
|
On October 03 2007 16:18 MyLostTemple wrote:
1) ,there are an assload of split communities in SC, ums, bgh, etc, making another one for all the high strung, stubborn UI blaming newbies your talking about won't be a problem. i know many bgh players who find normal maps too hard to play, that's fine. MBS wouldn't be an option at tournaments with my hypothesis because it won't be allowed for competitive play, only casual play. This seem like a failsafe way to keep newbies happy and progamers competitive.
No need to split the community even further. Normal melee 1v1/2v2 on normal-money maps should be the same for everyone. Let the splits, if they happen, come naturally, not because you designed two fundamentally different modes of gameplay.
As I've said previously, it would be extremely hard for a new player who starts out with MBS to adapt to SBS once it turns out that all leagues and the whole competitive scene plays SBS. Or the other way round, you all start out with SBS, then after some time all leagues change to MBS because it has a bigger following.
Suddenly you have to learn the game again...
Blizzard should not let that happen. The fundamental game should be the same for everyone. Either MBS is in, or it's out. No toggle.
The other splits happen naturally. Some players will stick with UMS games, some with BGH style money maps. But the fundamental "rules" of the game (MBS/SBS is very fundamental/important) in melee mode should be the same for everyone, so that there is always "one true way" of playing the game, not multiple "true ways".
|
On October 03 2007 16:04 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 14:30 MyLostTemple wrote:
With that being said i think it's completely fair to put MBS as a setting for non competitive games. That way players who don't wish to master as many aspects of the game can still play on an easier setting and learn/enjoy the game. I can't possibly imagine newbs will be less impressed or completely turned off by pro players who can't use MBS in their games... if anything they'll be MORE impressed and want to play even more so they can master the game with out the crutch of MBS. if they don't/can't it's no problem since they can just play with friends online. I have yet to see a good argument to why MBS as a setting can't please both crowds and assure SC2's success as an esport and as a pass time game for fun. (and i don't think masturbating the ego of a random newbie is reason enough)
I think it's one possible solution, but it also brings a number of problems. Firstly, the community would be split right off the bat, with possibly every non-hardcore SC player starting off with MBS in the game (99:1?). When looking for games, would you rather play on a ladder with 1000s of people with equal skill level to you or play on a second ladder (with a more difficult UI), with far less due to it being made up of mainly the SC vets? As people get used to MBS, most will likely find it difficult to switch, as they would be used to the higher micro, less macro style of game and simply choose to stick with it. Anyways, it could still work. I'm just a little bit skeptical if two modes will actually increase the # of pros who actively play SBS much beyond the current numbers in SC. Sponsors will basically go to whichever side has more competition, so you might end up with something like Korea (SBS) vs. rest of world (MBS). That's not necessarily a bad thing, if that's what you want.
That's one interesting thing to talk about.
I'd like to compare this directly to some learning stuff in sc:bw. Specifically about hotkeys and I'll be talking about my experience.
When I started playing sc:bw 5 1/2 years ago I prefered the Zerg. It was natural for me to use hotkeys on hatcheries as much as on units. I had a logical system which started from 0 for the hatcheries and from 1 for the units so the hotkeys meet. This is logical because it is simple and easy to understand. But it was impossible for me to use 7 to 0 with the left hand only so every time I went through my hatcheries I used my right hand for 7 to 0 and my left hand for sd/sz/sh/whatever. That was no problem for me since I have been a musician - means I was using both hands doing different things at the same time.
Later I saw replays where the Zerg players used the hotkeys from 4 to 0 for the hatcheries and some of them were progamers so I was confused. How the hell could they do that? I tried around but I never had a clue. I could not forget it, but I didn't want to think about it anymore and went back to my old system.
Then I switched to the Terran and you all know what that means: new hotkey system. For example I had to learn to use m&ms correctly. I never really made it.
Out of interest I took a look into the Help Menu and found out that I can use the F-keys to my advantage so that I can improve my macro. Of course that took quite some time and after every game I asked myself if I actually used the F-keys?? Some of you may know what I'm talking about haha 
I kept training Terran for some years with small jumps to Protoss and back, then someday I realised that my hotkey system for Terran was not good enough! Especially my old TvZ 1marine2marine3marine4medic5tank6vessel7dropship8scan9scan0scan system was just mad. I wasn't lazy so I worked out a new system and learned it, it was much better but it took me about 3 or more months to delete my knowledge and renew it. I need to improve my english, the last sentence is horrible.
For TvP I had to learn a different system. For TvT too. It was real hard work.
In the end I had a good system for each matchup but as a whole it took me 4 years to work them out and learn to use them automatically in game.
My point is simple:
If I can relearn hotkey systems every half a year then anyone can relearn once in his life that he has to live without MBS or automining. No kidding.
I hope you didn't fall asleep.
|
On October 03 2007 15:36 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 15:14 MyLostTemple wrote:
I'm sure you'll end up with even more people getting turned away from going pro in SC2 when they start getting raped by blinking stalker micro and rushed by well controlled colossus's. There is more to scare a newb away from going pro at SC2 than only being able to macro from one building at a time. There is a large fundamental difference between being outmicroed by the other player and losing because the player felt the game was limiting him. In case one, he clearly knows that his opponent was simply a better player and used skill to defeat him. He will accept the loss (if he is a competitive player), because he knows he can improve if he keeps playing and it is entirely his own fault that he has lost. On the other hand, if he thinks the game is at fault, he will not blame himself or the opponent, but only become pissed at the game for having an "archaic interface" designed by Blizzard to favor the SC veterans over any newer players. He will become increasingly frustrated as time goes on, and he may or may not quit playing competitively as a result. This is what happened to someone like aw]nevermind if you read his post. Even though the player is the one truly at fault, it will not seem that way to him, because it is human nature to always find something to place blame on other than himself. That's why you get some bad-mannered players screaming at his opponent for being a "cheesing noob" or "got fucking lucky" whenever he loses to say a proxy-strat, even though it's perfectly legitimate and his own fault for not scouting it.
orangedude,
You are just not making any sense. I thought of trying to logically explain to you where you are wrong but looking at your recent posts and the very good posters that tried to talk to you, it looks like you are just "locked" on your views and that you wish to avoid a logical discussion.
Nearly everything that can be said about this subject has already been written. Honestly I recommend that you just sit down and calmly read this thread with a cold glass of lemonade.
|
On October 03 2007 11:02 BlackStar wrote:
'Clicking agility' is not part of SC.
Hahaha, this is hilarious. I just received this PM:
This is a Warning!
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, and keyboard speed is.
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.
Thank you.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation,
The Mod Staff
(Do not reply to this message. No one will receive it.)
No offense but I think talking about 'clicking agility' when you mean much more than that is very degrading and inaccurate wording talking about the skills required to play Starcraft.
I am sure that the best players use exactly the same technique, if you can even speak of that, to click their mouse button as everyone else does. Aiming, sure. Keyboard, sure. But clicking? Huh?
It's very ignorant?
This is not the first time. A mod earlier tried to ban me because he misunderstood what I said very badly. Luckily he was overruled or realized his mistake. But what is up with this?
What is 'clicking speed'? Who writes all these things? This has been written by the mod staff? Is this a hoax? I would expect some more respect for the skill required to plat SC from the mod staff of a competitive SC site.
|
On October 03 2007 17:45 Brutalisk wrote:
As I've said previously, it would be extremely hard for a new player who starts out with MBS to adapt to SBS once it turns out that all leagues and the whole competitive scene plays SBS. Or the other way round, you all start out with SBS, then after some time all leagues change to MBS because it has a bigger following.
Suddenly you have to learn the game again...
I didnt get into starcraft until 2005. After playing many MBS RTS games. I didnt have any problem learning. You seem to overestimate the difficulty of clicking individual barracks. People will learn very fast.
However that being said, I still agree to have 2 modes of play. Easy and Hard mode. Hard mode will be where all the competative players will be, because its challenging and the competition will be that much higher. Easy mode will be where everyone else is. When someone tops the easy mode ladder, chances are they are competative players in the wrong ladder and will move across for more competition. Or they might be happy and stay. A player that gets frustrated at the Hard mode ladder will turn around and blame the game (because they cant handle the fact that they are crap) and justify playing on the easy ladder because its (more natural progression, no pointless clicks etc) Either way, the competative players arent going to be playing the noobs anyway. AMM will match people of similar skill, no player that has bought the game is going to get matched up with Savior. People will find their ladder and be happy. If Everyone ends up on the one ladder, then so be it, it was the more popular option. But people should have a choice. Blizzard shold treat both ladders as equally important. Competition organisers can choose which ruleset they want. EVERYONE WILL BE HAPPY.
EDIT: What is 'clicking speed'? Who writes all these things?
Clicking speed in starcraft is the speed at which you can move the mouse to the position you want it to be and click. Someone with fast clicking speed can quickly flick their mouse to a barracks and hit a hotkey, then flick to another and hit another hotkey etc. In FPS clicking speed is the same as your reaction time (the time it takes to move the mouse and blow someones head off)
Also, I wouldnt reccommend pissing off the mods.
|
On October 03 2007 19:52 Fen wrote:
Clicking speed in starcraft is the speed at which you can move the mouse to the position you want it to be and click.
That's mouse speed, of better; 'mouse agility'. 'Clicking' isn't moving, of course. But I can also see the reaction time thing.
Also, I wouldnt reccommend[sic] pissing off the mods.
Nope, you are right. They have a bit of a temper. So I better be careful.
|
On October 03 2007 18:29 Locke. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 15:36 orangedude wrote:On October 03 2007 15:14 MyLostTemple wrote:
I'm sure you'll end up with even more people getting turned away from going pro in SC2 when they start getting raped by blinking stalker micro and rushed by well controlled colossus's. There is more to scare a newb away from going pro at SC2 than only being able to macro from one building at a time. There is a large fundamental difference between being outmicroed by the other player and losing because the player felt the game was limiting him. In case one, he clearly knows that his opponent was simply a better player and used skill to defeat him. He will accept the loss (if he is a competitive player), because he knows he can improve if he keeps playing and it is entirely his own fault that he has lost. On the other hand, if he thinks the game is at fault, he will not blame himself or the opponent, but only become pissed at the game for having an "archaic interface" designed by Blizzard to favor the SC veterans over any newer players. He will become increasingly frustrated as time goes on, and he may or may not quit playing competitively as a result. This is what happened to someone like aw]nevermind if you read his post. Even though the player is the one truly at fault, it will not seem that way to him, because it is human nature to always find something to place blame on other than himself. That's why you get some bad-mannered players screaming at his opponent for being a "cheesing noob" or "got fucking lucky" whenever he loses to say a proxy-strat, even though it's perfectly legitimate and his own fault for not scouting it. orangedude, You are just not making any sense. I thought of trying to logically explain to you where you are wrong but looking at your recent posts and the very good posters that tried to talk to you, it looks like you are just "locked" on your views and that you wish to avoid a logical discussion. Nearly everything that can be said about this subject has already been written. Honestly I recommend that you just sit down and calmly read this thread with a cold glass of lemonade.
I posted that exactly because I want a logical discussion. If I didn't, why I would even post it here. By writing this post and attacking me, you are stating that you do not want to start one. Honestly, please tell me where you think my logic doesn't hold here. I can just as easily say others are "locked" onto their views as well and everything has already been written.
|
Neither of you two is clearly wrong or right, you have your points and you made them clear so nothing's wrong. You don't need to fight.
You both should re-read what you both posted or you should quit posting. For the topic and for us.
|
On October 03 2007 15:03 Aphelion wrote:
And before you bring up the "broaden the pro scene" argument again - I challenge you, do you honestly think that an RTS can make it as a serious e-sport in USA or even Europe? A scene that is worth us losing our 10 year old perfect game for? This is obviously the crux of your argument, the sacrificing of gameplay to achieve some noble goal in esports. You've been bringing it up as a deux ex machina for your arguments for so long now - its time to back it up.
We can make a separate topic for this if you want, specifically addressing this possibility. And be forewarned - teams like MYM paying players $100 a year to play in online clan leagues don't count. I want to see a feasible scenario to lead to something similar to that in Korea: the booming of mainstream industry. I do not see this happening within 5 years of SC2's release. I will debate this to the death with you if you want. Pick up the gauntlet if you dare.
You do realise MYM pay moon ~150k a year at the moment to play W3 for them? And he's not an isolated case. It's not as big as what Korean companies are paying SC players, but it's not insignificant. Assuming SC2 is a decent game, the interest in it in Europe and China will expand the current W3 e-sport scene immensely. I can easily see hundreds of gamers on decent salaries sponsored by European and Chinese companies within a year of SC2's release.
|
this thread is still going on? wow...
MBS is stupid, period. It's for newb games, made for newbie gamers.
SC is a competative / skilled game.
If you are too crappy to give good players a good game on Starcraft and it's unacceptable to you.
Here are your options. 1. Practice harder 2. Play War3
Don't post a "im pissed off" thread and try and ruin (potentially) a great game, so that you can be as unskilled in SC2 as you are in SC1 and actually win some games.
I don't care about your reasoning, I don't care about your debate skills. MBS is newbie and if you think it has a place in SC2, get the fuck off tl.net, gg.net, wgtour.com, uninstall sc and make sure I never see your ID again because you don't belong in this community.
now be manner and say GG and GTFO cuss you don't get a re when it comes to this subject and Starcraft.
|
I just want to state that lazerflip is hardly one of the best CnC3 players, he didnt even make it out of the US regionals. He is also a balance whiner and from his posts about cnc3 he had really no understanding at all about that game. And most cnc3 players, even the top ones, DO want mbs in sc2 also.
Btw, just to note, ive looked around on other forums and this is the only one ive seen were the discussion didnt end a long time ago with the pro anti mbs side giving up due to the mass of pro mbs posts. You are alone in this fight, or probably a lot of koreans are with you but i cant look up their boards since they dont talk english.
|
EA recently patched C&C3 again, changing some stats with 70%.
You are now just going ad hominem. No one claimed he was the best. Neither did he.
|
You know, if Blizzard had thought of how the game would be played, and the idea of MBS, they would have had it in Warcraft 1, day one. Let alone War2, SC, BW, etc. Are we really to believe that their lack of foresight and diligence in providing an optimal interface has by sheer luck provided the perfect game?
This all reminds me of how people always say SC:BW is perfectly balanced, despite that those same people said the same thing about significantly different balances, and despite the thousands of signs of the balance's lack of divinity. We know Blizzard didn't do any of this. The players did, the map authors did. So why do you think one feature is going to make it impossible?
edit: And it was listening to "authorities" at the time that got us War3. Let's not assume people know what makes a good game just because they became good at one.
|
CA10828 Posts
On October 04 2007 01:35 Klockan3 wrote:
Btw, just to note, ive looked around on other forums and this is the only one ive seen were the discussion didnt end a long time ago with the pro anti mbs side giving up due to the mass of pro mbs posts. You are alone in this fight, or probably a lot of koreans are with you but i cant look up their boards since they dont talk english. btw, just to note, starcraft sold around 10 million copies worldwide. 3.5 million of those copies sold were in korea, and due to the nature of pc bang culture, much more than 3.5 million people have played starcraft in south korea.
and no, koreans do not like MBS.
i would hardly call that "alone".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
