Why MBS Is Essential To a Competitive SC2 - Page 37
Forum Index > Closed |
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
| ||
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
On October 04 2007 09:52 Aphelion wrote: I missed nothing. You have no point to begin with, and playing with semantics isn't going to change that. You are a retard for thinking that Blizzard can take into account all the factors and recreate a monumental coincidence like SC without closely adhering to the formulas of the original game. I don't know if even if they can even without MBS. To think you can predict the results of a game like SC from scratch, through all these years - impossible. Remember, the original game speed was set to fast and mmf and EMP were excepted to be TvP mainstays. I have no confidence in Blizzard's ability to "take MBS into account and make SC2 just as competitive", mainly because no one really knew the magical formula for SC to begin with. Its no knock on them as a company - not even Einstein can figure this out. Secondly, macro and micro are universal concepts of RTS, not restricted to SC2. Just because its a new game doesn't mean criticism of the old UI is valid. And nice use of the loaded phrase "limited UI". All games are based upon limitations. RTS is about how well you can use the tools the game gives you, be it 12 unit selection maximum, needing to order every individual CC to make scvs, and so on. There was nothing wrong with the UI in SC - so there is no reason it is now "limited" when making SC2. It's not semantics. Just because you aren't able to see the difference between the two, doesn't mean there isn't a point in the comparison. The point again is that someone who hates macro and micro hates RTS period (or at least Blizzard-style RTS), since these two aspects are common to all of its genre, making this totally different from someone who dislikes one specific instance of artificial UI limitation that affects their ability to macro. There is nothing wrong with placing SC's UI in a game in 2009, except that most people tend to dislike such a limited UI for production due to breaking modern standards and will see it as discarding all the UI advances in the past 10 years. Okay, I'm a retard for thinking it's a good idea to at least wait until beta before making absolutely certain judgments on one feature of a game that is still under debate. On October 04 2007 09:52 Aphelion wrote: No, I was going by your text descriptions completely. You ignore the vast skill differentiation even among progamers, and you give sub 200apm ppl too much credit. Those middling people who have some idea of what SC but aren't very good - the only real people who would benefit from MBS - aren't that terribly many or important. And your <100apm noobs: I've already proven that they will complain no matter what. And I'm telling you, micro hating noobs don't hate the UI that much as they hate the AI (units don't micro themselves). Just like macro haters, they will always exist. Ignore them. The only real people who benefit from MBS are the mid-ranged level? So that's how Blizzard decided to go with it, just to satisfy one small group of people? Your assumptions don't hold any water because the resulting decision is clearly illogical based on this reasoning, and thus you have just refuted your own argument. There must be something huge that you're missing out on or flat out wrong about. The fallacy in your argument is this: Just because noobs will always find something to complain about, that doesn't mean they will do so concerning every topic with equal intensity. Do you honestly think Blizzard thinks "Hmm, noobs don't care about anything we do, so screw their thoughts. All they do is complain anyways." when designing SC2? No, as a company, they have to listen to their customers, because every newb is a customer too. So, if a large number of them all want the same feature, it will most likely be implemented. How many so-called micro-hating noobs do you find screaming about it on Blizzard's forums? Last I checked, zero. Micro ability simply comes from being given the ability to control your units and is an integral part of RTS games, especially Blizzard's. On the other hand, artificial caps on unit selection have indeed been given attention, and thus the selection caps have been lifted in SC2 for now. However, if Blizzard were to remove MBS from SC2, their forums would probably turn into a permanent war-zone. You might find a HUGE number of threads popping up complaining about the "outdated UI", and a few people defending it like you. Too bad, the overwhelming majority consisting of noobs and some decent players will be pro-MBS and Blizzard may end up revising their decisions due to the strong customer feedback. In fact it's pretty clear and logical to see how MBS will benefit noobs, because it will smooth the 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 don't know what blinded you from this type of thinking but I thought it was pretty obvious. On October 04 2007 07:14 Aphelion wrote: Twisting my words once again. I've proven many times, that those true casual noobs are players who would complain about everything anyways, and you have already dimissed a significant portion of them when you said we should not listen to micro-haters. We have also shown that those players know so little about hotkeys that they won't realize MBS was missing. You yourself insisted that you are interested in "potential pros" with between 150 to 200 apm. These people, people who an idea of what to do but can't do them, are the true beneficiaries of MBS. And among those people, the number who actually won't play SC2 without MBS real real insignificant. You didn't even misunderstand me either. You saw my detailed list. You deliberately tried to twist my argument. See above, you used illogical reasoning to prove your points. I said the mid-level players in addition to the noob players would benefit from MBS. I've never said exclusively mid-level benefit from MBS, because this is what you've argued. I pointed out that by also removing criteria one (the apm requirement) from your list, this would describe another larger and more important group who may be largely pro-MBS (newbs who have a competitive attitude). On October 04 2007 07:14 Aphelion wrote: We shouldn't appeal to them because we are two separate niches, and satisfying one comes at the cost of the other. Not enough of them would actually not play SC without MBS. But even if they did, they have their own genre. Let us have ours. We like totally different kinds of game, and even Blizzard recognizes that. Appealing to them comes at the cost of alienating the original fanbase. It only alienates the original fanbase IF the assumption that the game will totally suck competitvely holds true. Again, no one has proved this to be the case anywhere beyond a doubt. Last I checked, War3 and SC2 games are in the same genre, an RTS. Both games also require similar skill sets, namely a high mechanical skill component (apm) and both short and long-term strategical thinking abilities. There is absolutely no reason why a player cannot enjoy and play well in both SC and War3, and in fact many do. IMO, there is no real difference between a competitive "War3" player and a competitive "SC" player, assuming they have about equal mechanical skills. If having MBS in the game could help attract and keep additional talent in the game without compromising the quality of the game, then it would be foolish not to do add it. Until we know how significant MBS changes are to the game in beta, this all comes down to opinion. No, it is my opinion that you are a disingenous, terrible poster who uses a good debate formatting ability to obscure real content and substance put forward by respected members of the community. I call you out as a new poster who is clearly focused upon just one agenda, and very likely dissembling your own selfish interests in the debate. This is a private house, I believe your a bad guest and I am stating my opinion out to the world. I said I didn't want to exchange ad hominem attacks, but I guess you leave me no choice. Have you ever tried to think from another's viewpoint? You speak of all this proof, but I don't see much, except that to you, any and every kind of change from SC is bad, and nothing good will ever come of SC2. You then use this basis to repeatedly disprove every other argument. I don't know why you bother to discuss SC2, when you think it's already hell-bent on becoming a piece of garbage that will alienate SC fans, since Blizzard has no idea what they're doing. I've never predicted anything, aside from the fact that it's too early to tell if SC2 will actually work or not (better to wait until beta). In my opinion, when you fail to understand my points, you then turn around and tell me I haven't made any. You then make false claims (without proof) such as how people who want MBS are a "niche". On top of it all, you invent a selfish agenda for me, then "call" me out based on your own self-created views of someone who disagrees with your points. | ||
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
And why do you respond to the same arguments over and over again but when a new one pops up you simply ignore it? Do you maybe realize the amount of the con's so you just close your eyes? | ||
orangedude
Canada220 Posts
I have thought about it and responded to it before. IMO, it's a potential solution but not a perfect one. On October 03 2007 16:04 orangedude wrote: 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 04 2007 14:01 ForAdun wrote: MBS will only kill 50% of the community and the other half will be happy. Or since we don't know the exact numbers how can you think of a better scenario? Only 30% will be lost? 20%? Do you know how many hardcore-fans sc:bw has? Or do you know the pro-MBS speakers personally? Maybe it won't kill any of the community, but only increase it by attracting more new SC2 players. It might result in a less intense game or it might actually be similar the original. I don't claim to know the answers, so I will wait until beta to see the impacts first hand. On October 04 2007 14:01 ForAdun wrote: And why do you respond to the same arguments over and over again but when a new one pops up you simply ignore it? Do you maybe realize the amount of the con's so you just close your eyes? Which new arguments though? Why can't I leave the argument for the pros of MBS (in-game) to other people who may come up with better points than me? I think MBS might be slightly detrimental to gameplay, but I don't know by how much exactly. | ||
potchip
Australia260 Posts
The main concern I have for not using MBS is the number of hotkeys required in late game sc games. Simply put, 1 to 0 is not enough for all single select building hotkey + units nor are they any easier to access. But we have limited keys on our keyboards so we need to maximize the output of what we've got. | ||
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
On October 04 2007 13:39 orangedude wrote: It's not semantics. Just because you aren't able to see the difference between the two, doesn't mean there isn't a point in the comparison. The point again is that someone who hates macro and micro hates RTS period (or at least Blizzard-style RTS), since these two aspects are common to all of its genre, making this totally different from someone who dislikes one specific instance of artificial UI limitation that affects their ability to macro. There is nothing wrong with placing SC's UI in a game in 2009, except that most people tend to dislike such a limited UI for production due to breaking modern standards and will see it as discarding all the UI advances in the past 10 years. Okay, I'm a retard for thinking it's a good idea to at least wait until beta before making absolutely certain judgments on one feature of a game that is still under debate. Even in a post where you claim “it’s not semantics”, that’s all you have to offer. Let me say it for one more time: SC’s UI is not “artificially limited”, rather, it is optimum for competitive play. UI’s have limitations by definition, and since we agree that SC is a manual game as much as it is a mental game, these limitations must be chosen for best degree of competitive gameplay. Years of experience have shown that SC’s UI works, and that MBS in other games has not had much success. It is certainly true that there are many, many more reasons why these games are not as good as SC, but the track record isn’t good. At the very most, you cannot claim that MBS will likely have a good effect on SC. Neither can you use those games as a standard for UI – instead of being advancements of RTS, they are very far behind. Blizzard has no reason to look to them for example, or feel obligated to include what they introduced. Let me be very clear about this fact. I think you admitted as much, but you think that the corresponding expansion in the professional scene will more than compensate for that. That is worth debating, but I want to say reiterate that there is no inherent quality in SBS that mandates its replacement, not its supposedly artificialness, not its being a supposed “standard” for the RTS genre. The standard is Starcraft: Brood War. Nothing else matters. The only real people who benefit from MBS are the mid-ranged level? So that's how Blizzard decided to go with it, just to satisfy one small group of people? Your assumptions don't hold any water because the resulting decision is clearly illogical based on this reasoning, and thus you have just refuted your own argument. There must be something huge that you're missing out on or flat out wrong about. The major fallacy in your argument is this: Just because noobs will always find something to complain about, that doesn't mean they will do so concerning every topic with equal intensity. Do you honestly think Blizzard thinks "Hmm, noobs don't care about anything we do, so screw their thoughts. All they do is complain anyways." when designing SC2? How many so-called micro-hating noobs do you find screaming about it on Blizzard's forums? Last I checked, zero. Micro ability simply comes from being given the ability to control your units and is an integral part of RTS games, especially Blizzard's. On the other hand, artificial caps on unit selection have indeed been given attention, and thus the selection caps have been lifted in SC2 for now. However, if Blizzard were to remove MBS from SC2, their forums would probably turn into a permanent war-zone. You might find a HUGE number of threads popping up complaining about the "outdated UI", and a few people defending it like you. Too bad, the overwhelming majority consisting of noobs and some decent players will be pro-MBS and Blizzard may end up revising their decisions due to the strong customer feedback. In fact it's pretty clear and logical to see how MBS will benefit noobs, because it will smooth the 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 don't know what blinded you from this type of thinking but I thought it was pretty obvious. Two problems have to be addressed in your above segment, first of all, we are here arguing about what course Blizzard should take. Therefore, it makes no sense to say, obviously your argument is incorrect because Blizzard’s current stance reflects this. If we agreed about the validity of Blizzard putting MBS in, we wouldn’t be in this argument in the first place. Second of all, you argue that if noobs complain loud enough and often enough, their points should be taken into account. That’s how you wish to differentiate from my micro-hating example and the current pro-MBSers. That makes sense from your perspective – you want to make SC2 a more popular game to possibly foster an e-sports scene. I disagree with this approach. I believe that SC2 should be made the best game it possibly can be, simply because it is feeling the shoes of the best, and some would say only great professional RTS game of its kind. Noobs can always run to other games. We have absolutely nothing when SC2 strips us of our community and gives us nothing in return. From this point, in consideration of “fairness” to our community, SC2 should be catered to us. It will be a popular, fun game, regardless of MBS. Also, it is a matter of principle. If noobs don’t appreciate SBS and whine about it, does it really matter that there’s more of them than those who complain about say, lack of automatic unit retreat? Does the quantity of illegitimate points by the uninformed really matter? For the purposes of making a good game, definitely not. For the purposes of sales, quite possibly, but then again SC2 will sell regardless. But we are here only to provide Blizzard input about how to make a good game first and foremost – then they can decide to ignore that advice in favor of the greenbacks. But if we, the gamers, don’t take into account gaming considerations first, who will? Lastly, I want to correct a few misconceptions you have. First of all, its not a given that micro is accepted by the casual RTS fan as a big part of the sport. In fact, I’d say probably less than half accept that. The common RTS fan still sees it as a war simulation, a game of playing commander. Hence you have games like Supreme Commander and Total Annihilation. Micro is a defining trait of Blizzard’s games, and macro, micro, and multitasking is the defining trait of Starcraft, the greatest RTS game ever. When making Starcraft II, all these must be treated equally. Your second misconception is that all noobs will appreciate MBS. Only those who are somewhat aware of the conceptual groundwork behind RTSes will actually realize the importance of macro in gameplay. While everyone realizes more units are better than few, that is not always reflected in the actual implementation. Hence you have noobs building a carrier fleet out of 1 stargate! So the actual amount of players affected by MBS is truly smaller than you think: they have to lack the mechanics or the will to improve those mechanics, as well as have the theorycraft to at least realize they want to constantly produce units out of many production facilities. That group is quite smaller than you think. see above It only alienates the original fanbase IF the assumption that the game will totally suck competitvely holds true. Again, no one has proved this to be the case anywhere beyond a doubt. Last I checked, War3 and SC2 games are in the same genre, an RTS. Both games also require similar skill sets, namely a high mechanical skill component (apm) and both short and long-term strategical thinking abilities. There is absolutely no reason why a player cannot enjoy and play well in both SC and War3, and in fact many do. IMO, there is no real difference between a competitive "War3" player and a competitive "SC" player, assuming they have about equal mechanical skills. If having MBS in the game could help attract and keep additional talent in the game without compromising the quality of the game, then it would be foolish not to do add it. Until we know how significant MBS changes are to the game in beta, this all comes down to opinion. First of all, War3 and Starcraft are not the same genre. SC is a RTS through and through, War3 is a RTRPG. Dustin Browder and Chris Sigaty stated as much, that they wish to differentiate the franchises, and that each has different focus: SC will be the mass army macro game, War3 will have more heroes and focus on micro. Because the genres are not quite same, War3 fans and SC fans are not the same. Going beyond the chauvinism we feel against War3, we simply appreciate different kinds of games with varying characteristics. There really isn’t much to argue here. And while “testing MBS” is good in theory, there are problems with you bringing it up to stifle debate. We are here to debate the possible merits of including it in the final game, not its temporary inclusion in a specific build of the game. We are arguing with the knowledge we have right now. I furthermore doubt that that balancing of MBS can be done that late. I suspect that it will greatly affect the unit stats, tech tree, research times etc in testing, and that the latter cannot be fully tested without the UI being fixed. The largest impact of MBS will also be shown not in beta testing, but 1-3 years down the line, as Nony so well argued. The depths of the game will suffer from MBS reducing mechanics, and that simply is too vast to be beta tested. So while experiment is always the best way to find things out in theory, I doubt in this case it can be reliable without an exorbitantly long development cycle and test time. I said I didn't want to exchange ad hominem attacks, but I guess you leave me no choice. Have you ever tried to think from another's viewpoint? You speak of all this proof, but I don't see much, except that to you, any and every kind of change from SC is bad, and nothing good will ever come of SC2. You then use this basis to repeatedly disprove every other argument. I don't know why you bother to discuss SC2, when you think it's already hell-bent on becoming a piece of garbage that will alienate SC fans, since Blizzard has no idea what they're doing. I've never predicted anything, aside from the fact that it's too early to tell if SC2 will actually work or not (better to wait until beta). In my opinion, when you fail to understand my points, you then turn around and tell me I haven't made any. You then make false claims (without proof) such as how people who want MBS are a "niche". On top of it all, you invent a selfish agenda for me, then "call" me out based on your own self-created views of someone who disagrees with your points. Trust me, I know the MBS argument really well – primarily because when I was learning the game, I was always frustrated by the lack of it, and always complained about needing it. I know the feeling of a noob well, because, well, I am one. You can refute your agenda for as long as you care, but the facts don’t support you. This is pretty much the only topic you have created, and your games with Tasteless show you to be of the skill level to mostly benefit from MBS. And you don’t have to go pro for that to happen either – everyone would love to be good at a game. The fact is, while you accuse me of being close minded, you have simply ignored or made a strawman of every argument that many well-known players here have made against MBS. You claim that their views were too narrow, their reasoning was too inductive rather than of a strictly deductive nature, and that their experiences were pertinent to only SC. You are quick to dismiss their scenarios as SC specific, to say that we can’t know what will transpire in SC2 – yet you are willing to go out on a limb to say that Blizzard can design SC2 with so and so in mind. You point of many possible “alternatives” to macro, yet without stating a single example beyond vague references to warp gates or blinking. None of us knows what SC2 will be like for sure. But drawing from experiences, especially those of good players, is very pertinent, because it is the game that Blizzard is trying to recreate, to imagine. SC2 is definitely made with capturing the feel of SC in mind. The very fact that Blizzard comes to TL is a recognition of the validity of expert opinion. While their ideas may be somewhat restricted, they are still much, much, much more indicative of SC2’s probable development than your theoretical assumptions. | ||
xtian15
Philippines29 Posts
Wow. Sorry but I think this is just way too arrogant for my tastes. Share the game, will ya? While I do appreciate AND enjoy watching pro-games, some of us want to enjoy casual games. Fighting the opposing player while fighting with the UI (selecting each building to build units, choosing 1 templar at a time to cast psi storm) might be the definition of casual gaming a decade ago (as there was nothing else better), casual gaming today is very different and MBS is one of those changes. While the debate whether MBS is better for tournaments or not is still on the table, the standard of casual gaming right now and in the near future is irrefutable. It may be right or wrong, it may be good or bad for the game, but casual gamers will expect that double clicking a building will choose all buildings of the same sort. And that templars don't stupidly cast all their Psi Storms in one place where it wont stack. They (casual gamers) will expect it to be implemented. | ||
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
Blizzard stated they want to cater to the professional community, and that is what you have to do. If they want to make a noob game, fine. Start some other franchise instead. Call it by another name. Don't pretend to bother with us. Don't kill our community, and just leave us be. Edit: Also read the thread title. OP states "MBS is necessary for a competitive SC2". Not, lets add MBS for fun casual players. I can accept the later logic, even if I don't agree with its goal. On the other hand, I feel the OP statement is just flat out wrong. | ||
InterWill
Sweden117 Posts
On October 04 2007 12:24 mensrea wrote: At least the anti-MBS camp has some bases for their argument (look at the disastrous state of competitive WC3, for example) I've seen this argument come up numerous times in this thread and elsewhere and it find it very odd. How could you argue that having Multiple Building Selection in a game like Warcraft III has anything to do with its competitive state. A StarCraft and Warcraft III comparison - or why using Warcraft III as an example of why MBS is bad is bad.
Remember the "Let's imagine SC1 with MBS"-thread? WarCraft III without MBS would have played almost exactly like it does with MBS. The macro is so deemphasized through non-interface mechanics that interface improvements does very little - if anything at all - to affect that aspect of the overall gameplay. | ||
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
| ||
iD.NicKy
France767 Posts
OBV NO, Too much automatic shits just makes the game too easy to masterize | ||
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On October 05 2007 04:17 InterWill wrote: I've seen this argument come up numerous times in this thread and elsewhere and it find it very odd. How could you argue that having Multiple Building Selection in a game like Warcraft III has anything to do with its competitive state. A StarCraft and Warcraft III comparison - or why using Warcraft III as an example of why MBS is bad is bad.
Remember the "Let's imagine SC1 with MBS"-thread? WarCraft III without MBS would have played almost exactly like it does with MBS. The macro is so deemphasized through non-interface mechanics that interface improvements does very little - if anything at all - to affect that aspect of the overall gameplay. like you said, macro has very little importance in war3 gameplay. it doesnt matter if thats because of mbs or not, the fact is macro is a very minor aspect of war3, if mbs makes macro a minor part of sc2 gameplay it could have the same effect on its value as a competetive game. | ||
![]()
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 05 2007 04:41 IdrA wrote: like you said, macro has very little importance in war3 gameplay. it doesnt matter if thats because of mbs or not, the fact is macro is a very minor aspect of war3, if mbs makes macro a minor part of sc2 gameplay it could have the same effect on its value as a competetive game. Mm, I think his point was that MBS isn't what made War3 a worse spectator/competitive game than SC (assuming it is, I think so but for the sake of not starting any debates I wanna make it clear that it's just my opinion). Nor is MBS what made macro a minor part of War3, it's just the way the game is - favours small armies via upkeep and heroes etc. Which I agree with. But when making this point he also shows how huge the impact of MBS in SC1/SC2 would be, IMO. | ||
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
my point was that if you eliminate the macro in sc2 it'll end up like war3. it doesnt really matter why war3 ended up like that, just that it would be an equivalent effect. | ||
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On October 05 2007 04:57 IdrA wrote: ya i know, hence "it doesnt matter if thats because of mbs or not" my point was that if you eliminate the macro in sc2 it'll end up like war3. it doesnt really matter why war3 ended up like that, just that it would be an equivalent effect. No it wouldnt, large parts of macro doesnt have anything to do with mbs. Sure it would play a bit more like wc3, since the mechanical parts of macro is easier, but the mental parts of macro is just as it was in starcraft and the physical parts of macro is still more than in wc3. Also microing armies in starcraft is a lot different from warcraft 3. | ||
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
Microing armies in starcraft is different it is a lot faster, and you never know when your mm might die to mass lurks or vessels get scourged when your back macroing. Hence that support anti-MBS, not discourage it. | ||
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On October 05 2007 05:10 Klockan3 wrote: No it wouldnt, large parts of macro doesnt have anything to do with mbs. Sure it would play a bit more like wc3, since the mechanical parts of macro is easier, but the mental parts of macro is just as it was in starcraft and the physical parts of macro is still more than in wc3. Also microing armies in starcraft is a lot different from warcraft 3. sigh you're hopeless | ||
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
http://sc.gosugamers.net/thread/158989 half the people dont want it, and those are the newbs you're trying to cater to. | ||
xtian15
Philippines29 Posts
On October 05 2007 04:38 Aphelion wrote: We're not saying that War3 shows MBS is bad. We're just saying you can't say War 3 was fine (some posters think so), so MBS isn't bad. We are also pointing out that War3 has a dearth of macro , a style which we don't want to see in SC. We're using War3 to show why constant base management and hectic unit production should be kept in SC, and one of the prerequisites for that is to disinclude MBS. The lessening of Macro is War3 was in no way connected to MBS. In War3, there will be a maximum of 3 battlefronts as fighting without your hero is nonsense (infact, the best harassers are heroes like the Blademaster). The game mechanics itself prevents macro. Not MBS. The number of required peasants in War3 (which is quite low compared to SC) mainly dictates how much you can harass. Not MBS. High cost per unit and upkeep has the general effect of limiting the number of units in battle therefore lessening the action in the game. Not MBS. | ||
Doctorasul
Romania1145 Posts
In any case, arguments on both sides are only as good as our experience with SC2, which is very very slim, including those that have been to BlizzCon. Think about it, what does a player know about SC BW after playing only 20 games? Is he in any position to make judgements about how anything will affect the way the game is played when thousands of people have been playing it for thousands of games? Why is it so clear to us that theorycrafting about a particular build is useless until it's tested against experienced adversaries multiple times, and yet we readily spew out certainties about how this UI change will play out in the long run? These questions can only be settled by testing again and again, by different players of different styles, until the conclusion is clear to all. If it really is that easy to draw conclusions now, why bother with beta testing at all? | ||
| ||