Why MBS Is Essential To a Competitive SC2 - Page 36

On October 04 2007 04:39 Aphelion wrote:

1.) Well, it certainly would be stupid for Blizzard to lower the quality of the best competitive RTS in the world, and the most successful e-sport by far for illegitimate points, won't they? I don't think I need to say more.

On October 04 2007 04:39 Aphelion wrote:
2.) Your actual arguments speak otherwise. You seem far too eager to define "potential pro" and "noobs" to suit your arguments. When a micro-hating noob doesn't like your vision of SC2, you are all too willing to throw him under the bus.

On October 04 2007 04:39 Aphelion wrote:
Yet you bring up a kind of people you feel SC2 should cater to:

-competitive enough to have 150 - 200 apm

-doesn't have devotion to play without MBS

-motivated enough to be a "potential pro"

-appreciates micro, but not macro without MBS

A very arbitrary and limited list of players that is hardly going to "further broaden the future of e-sports". I still feel you at least somewhat simply want SC2 to be made easier and more suited for you to play.

On October 04 2007 04:39 Aphelion wrote:
-competitive enough to have 150 - 200 apm

On October 04 2007 06:20 Failsafe wrote:
the group of people you're arguing that SC2 should cater to may not even exist.

On October 04 2007 06:20 Failsafe wrote:
orangedude, you don't have an accurate idea of bw's skill hierarchy, and that casts some doubt on to your ability to project what sc2 needs in order to live up to it. ultimately what's important is that sc2 be a great game, not a 'different' game. starcraft, after all, is clearly a great game, and when you're following in the footesteps of something great, it seems like a pretty poor idea to deliberately do things differently unless you've got a very accurate idea about what actually can be improved.

most pro-MBS arguments have simply ignored all the indirect consequences of MBS, and are happy to go on pretending that those consequences just don't exist.

the other problem with your analysis is that your potential player base is decidedly skewed in favor of your pro-MBS argument. two of your four criterion end in 'but will not play without MBS.' it's the height of circularity to approach the subject that way, especially when you're yet to provide any evidence that the number of these diehard MBS-demanders are really such an impotant fraction of potential customers.

competitiveness in starcraft has an absolutely huge negative correlation with being for MBS. not a single good player in any of these MBS threads has said anything in favor of MBS. the group of people you're arguing that SC2 should cater to may not even exist. it may be that most competitive RTS gamers don't think MBS should be in the game, and thus would definitely play the game if it didn't have MBS.

On October 04 2007 01:35 Klockan3 wrote:
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.

On October 04 2007 05:57 orangedude wrote:

No you don't, because they are not applying those changes to SC. They are creating a new game with its own new UI, many new units, and a new name, SC2. It may in fact hold up to SC's standard in RTS quality, even it uses a brand new UI. It might work out, or it might not. I don't claim to know for sure, so we will see in beta.


You are right, maybe my definitions are a bit vague so I'll try to define them in a clearer way then. The way I envision the player base works is like a pyramid or hierarchy. Only certain players move up a step in the ladder if they enjoy the game (not frustrated) and are kept motivated and playing for a long enough time.

+ Show Spoiler +
I believe it's more likely that these micro-hating noobs will realize in time that it's their own fault rather than the game's, because it's not the UI that is really limiting their micro. I do see your point though, but I do think that these micro-complaints will be far less pronounced and short-term than complaints about a UI that is limiting their macro. Again I say this, because you will see this type of behavior on boards and whatnot even from decent players. Anyways, this is what I think and you can disagree with me if you want.


I think any decent player from any other RTS out there (including War3) could potentially fall into the above category. Since SC2 is a new game, there will of course be a lot of decent people migrating from other games as well. That's nothing to laugh at, considering there are more War3 players outside of Korea than SC players. That's an already established skill pool, which can immediately jumpstart the competitive scene.

But more importantly, if you remove criteria one and look at my pyramid chart, I think it perfectly describes a large proportion of the "potential pros" that are so necessary for SC2 to retain in order to expand it's competitive scene.

Also, could you please stop with the personal remarks? I could just as easily turn around and say that you want SBS in the game at least somewhat to retain your macro skill from SC and transfer them to SC2 and you are afraid to diminish this advantage over other players. But personal attacks don't lead anywhere.

On October 04 2007 06:57 IdrA wrote:

i dont think many people took your arguments very seriously to begin with, but flat out lying isnt gonna help.
im pretty sure lazerflip made it past regionals as i met him at nationals.

On October 04 2007 07:14 Aphelion wrote:


1.) Hatred of macro and micro are not just restricted to SC - but SC2 and any RTS. In all these cases they are illegitimate. This even more as SC2 must be made based upon successes and
features from SC, which also happens to be the pinnacle and defining RTS. Your arbitrary "oh thats just SC1" argument holds no water here.

On October 04 2007 07:14 Aphelion wrote:
2.) Your pyramid is fucked and just wrong. You overestimate the people in the middling two categories by FAR and underestimate the number of people who are already very good or very bad. Those are also the two groups that your MBS doesn't really cater to. The people who fit the criteria of those benefitting from MBS are just another niche, just a less skilled one. They also happen to have mostly not appreciated SC enough to stuck with it over other games.

On October 04 2007 04:29 orangedude wrote:
But more importantly, if you remove criteria one and look at my pyramid chart, I think it perfectly describes a large proportion of the "potential pros" from the newbie level that are so necessary for SC2 to retain in order to expand it's competitive scene.

On October 04 2007 07:14 Aphelion wrote:
3.) We SC players hate WC3. Blizzard has defined them to be separate genres. Don't give up our ONLY game, a BETTER game, to appease them.

On October 04 2007 07:14 Aphelion wrote:
I am toneing down the personal remarks to an absolute minimum. But after 30 pages of nonsensical fillibustering and spewing out flawed argument after flawed argument, of ignoring Tasteless's advice and nitpicking the heartfelt arguments of several highly skilled players - all by a poster who has come and posted on almost exclusively this topic - your motivations must be called into question. This is especially since you fit a profile which would benefit most, selfishly speaking, from MBS. TL is this way: your standing in this community will affect how your argument is taken. Don't mistake it for a formal debate.

You can turn the ad hominem on me if you wish. Just you know, several posters here can attest to my horrible multitasking and macro, and that I would benefit greatly from MBS, more than the average player. And if its a question of personal credentials, the credibility who are anti-MBS far outweighs those who are for it.

On October 04 2007 07:32 IdrA wrote:
ya, top 2 advanced from regionals. he got top 2.
good to see you make sure you're informed before you post about something.

On October 04 2007 07:55 IdrA wrote:
yes, it does hold. other competetive gamers do indeed want mbs out, his statement alone proves that.
no one ever said EVERY other competetive player wants it out, i would guess alot of them would want to keep it because it would make the transition between games easier for them.
however if you look at their motives, he has no underlying motive to say mbs would make sc2 worse. the games he plays have mbs, adding mbs to sc2 would make it easier for him to play. however he says mbs/automine would dumb sc2 down in spite of that.
i doubt many of the pro-mbs gamers honestly believe mbs/automine would make sc2 a better quality game, they just want it in to make things easier for themselves.

On October 04 2007 06:39 Klockan3 wrote:
Are you serious? In every other english speaking forum ive seen the pro mbs side wins this argumentation hands down due to the general population being very skewed towards it.

On October 04 2007 07:43 orangedude wrote:

No, you're missing my point again. There's a difference between "hating micro" or "hating macro" and "hating macro due to limited UI". The former two cannot be reconciled at all if the game is to be called SC2, while the third can be easily alleviated by adding MBS to the game's UI. If you're going to tell me there's no more macro in SC2 after adding MBS, then go argue with the other people, as I'm not about to get into that.

Of course, its just a fucking representation made in Paint. Of course I know that there are a LOT fewer people as you move up the pyramid. Have you ever seen a pyramid diagram before? The levels aren't necessarily to scale, since it's really only important that it decreases as you move up. Plus, I had to fit all that text in.

I just realized that you must've totally missed this paragraph, so read my post more carefully before making baseless comments.

I never said MBS caters to every group, but it will obviously be preferred by the lower levels more than any other. You are saying that the lower level of newbies that can be potential pros are just a "niche"? I will straight out disagree with you, because this is a significant group of people and contains a large proportion of pro-MBS players. Until you can show some evidence that it's only a "niche", you are just writing empty statements with zero backing. You just claimed that the mid and upper levels are being far overrepresented in my "not-to-scale" diagram, so that makes the lower group even larger.

Why should you not want to appeal to them? You don't want more competitive players to be added to the SC skill pool? Do you hate the actual RTS players just because they play War3? Giving up and/or dumbing down the game would be the focus of the other argument, and it's still an ongoing debate so stop acting like you've already won that and use that here.

No comment, other than it's your opinion and you should keep it to your damn self. And no, I do not want to get started with turning ad hominems on each other, and I don't understand why you want to promote this.