|
On October 05 2007 18:08 xtian15 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
But nevertheless there will be a loss in macro. It may not be due to MBS, but it sucked. MBS will cause a similar loss in macro and multitasking, and so it will play much more like War3.
You didn't really understand my post, did you?
|
On October 05 2007 22:18 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2007 18:08 xtian15 wrote: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. But nevertheless there will be a loss in macro. It may not be due to MBS, but it sucked. MBS will cause a similar loss in macro and multitasking, and so it will play much more like War3. You didn't really understand my post, did you?
There will be no los in macro stupid, only in macro clicks. You still do exactly the same things as before, just with less clicks. Nothing is automated, popcap isnt lowered, workers arent capped, expos arent capped, income isnt capped, structures arent capped and there is no extra penality losing units other than not having it anymore.
The only thing you are missing is the choice of when to have the macro blindspots.
|
On October 05 2007 22:22 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2007 22:18 Aphelion wrote:On October 05 2007 18:08 xtian15 wrote: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. But nevertheless there will be a loss in macro. It may not be due to MBS, but it sucked. MBS will cause a similar loss in macro and multitasking, and so it will play much more like War3. You didn't really understand my post, did you? There will be no los in macro stupid, only in macro clicks. You still do exactly the same things as before, just with less clicks. Nothing is automated, popcap isnt lowered, workers arent capped, expos arent capped, income isnt capped, structures arent capped and there is no extra penality losing units other than not having it anymore. The only thing you are missing is the choice of when to have the macro blindspots.
Fuck off moron.
|
On October 05 2007 22:31 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2007 22:22 Klockan3 wrote:On October 05 2007 22:18 Aphelion wrote:On October 05 2007 18:08 xtian15 wrote: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. But nevertheless there will be a loss in macro. It may not be due to MBS, but it sucked. MBS will cause a similar loss in macro and multitasking, and so it will play much more like War3. You didn't really understand my post, did you? There will be no los in macro stupid, only in macro clicks. You still do exactly the same things as before, just with less clicks. Nothing is automated, popcap isnt lowered, workers arent capped, expos arent capped, income isnt capped, structures arent capped and there is no extra penality losing units other than not having it anymore. The only thing you are missing is the choice of when to have the macro blindspots. Fuck off moron.
To fill in for you:
You can argue that the skill to click buildings really fast (wich should be noted is the only thing that dissapears from macro other than the decision of when to do these clicks) is a skill that you value very highly. Its impossible to argue against that ofcourse, ill just say that most want to do other things than click buildings just for the sake of clicking buildings wich is essentailly the argument the anti mbs side has.
Taking out mbs now is about as dumb as instead making so that all your structures self destruct if you dont click them once per minute, creating hectic "high skill" building clicking. This would get almost the same effect on pro games, just that it would carry on through the whole game and not just as long as theres minerals on the map wich means that its better than removing mbs by your definition.
|
Do you ever fucking read anything? The fast clicking is a part of it, but even more is the conscious effort of having to leave your army and returning to your base.
Goddamn wtf, if you want to do it I can say the same about micro too, its just about clicking really fast while having to decide which units to move. And that follows a simple pattern of minimzing dmg taken and maximizing dmg dealt. Or even any fucking strategy. No skill involved in memorizing BOs. Preprogramme them in wtf!
Jesus fucking christ I don't even know how you can be so stupid. Tell me, do you even play the goddamn game?
|
Didn't want to have to post this but enough is enough: that kid is the same retard who was trolling in the other MBS threads who I - obviously I didn't put him in his place.
Cynic or whatever the hell his fucking name is decided to 'warn' me instead (rofl - some people really need to learn how to read - too funny).
He's a troll just ignore him or you might get banned for a dumb reason.
|
On October 05 2007 22:18 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2007 18:08 xtian15 wrote: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. But nevertheless there will be a loss in macro. It may not be due to MBS, but it sucked. MBS will cause a similar loss in macro and multitasking, and so it will play much more like War3. You didn't really understand my post, did you?
Actually, this guy is right. In War3 you have 11-20 workers and 2-4 production buildings usually hotkeyed under different hotkeys anyway. MBS and automining have absolutely NO influence on how War3 is being played, if they removed it there it wouldn't make any difference at all. And with large amounts of unit producing buildings and massive armies you can't really compare War3 macro to SC2 macro for that matter.
Edit: I'd really appreciate it when people would stop pointing out how War3 was ruined by MBS and automining. Use other examples please.
|
NO ONE said War3 sucked because of MBS. We said if you add MBS in SC, it will suck like War3 in that you never have to look at your base when microing and all your attention is focused on the units.
|
On October 05 2007 23:13 Aphelion wrote:
NO ONE said War3 sucked because of MBS. We said if you add MBS in SC, it will suck like War3 in that you never have to look at your base when microing and all your attention is focused on the units.
War3 is completely different game that is being played differently. You can't really ever compare SC and War3 because this games have almost nothing to do with each other. C&C would be a better comparison to SC than War3.
Edit: Here's a little breakdown.
|
1.) We think War3 sucks.
2.) We feel a huge reason for that is because you don't have to look away from the army and are focused on it all day long.
3.) We think MBS in SC2 will cause the same thing.
4.) We think that would suck ass.
5.) We don't want SC2 to suck.
6.) We don't want MBS in SC2.
Ergo, we don't want MBS in SC2 because we think it will make SC2 suck like WC3.
|
On October 05 2007 22:54 Aphelion wrote:
Do you ever fucking read anything? The fast clicking is a part of it, but even more is the conscious effort of having to leave your army and returning to your base.
Goddamn wtf, if you want to do it I can say the same about micro too, its just about clicking really fast while having to decide which units to move. And that follows a simple pattern of minimzing dmg taken and maximizing dmg dealt. Or even any fucking strategy. No skill involved in memorizing BOs. Preprogramme them in wtf!
Jesus fucking christ I don't even know how you can be so stupid. Tell me, do you even play the goddamn game?
Lol, you dont understand anything!
MBS = You do the exact same macro as before, only with fewer clicks!
If you can find any micro thing that lets you have exactly the same control over your armies as without it but with fewer clicks, can you tell me them here? Automicro things removes playercontrol just like automacro things. Mbs isnt automacro, it however makes parts of macro take less clicks, it doesnt remove those parts, it doesnt automates those parts, just makes them take less clicks.
If we only look at the macro parts of starcraft with and wo mbs the only difference is that it will take less clicks. So all your arguing for is to add more clicks to the game.
And as i said, you cant remove anymore micro clicks without automating things, as such you cant draw that parallell.
And now on to the point, mbs removes some of the macro clicks. Those macro clicks were very easy to do and takes no thinking at all, just go through the same series of clicks every time. The actual thinking doesnt get removed by mbs wich is why i didnt include it here, since its in no way a part of the mbs debate. Now, if we remove those mindless clicks, and add mindfull clicks were you have to think for each one we make the game HARDER and not easier.
And as said before, you do loose the skill needed to choose when to have these blackout times, but really that skill isnt that interesting and imo if done right blizzard can easily make up for it with more smart apm.
On October 05 2007 23:30 Aphelion wrote:
Ergo, we don't want MBS in SC2 because we think it will make SC2 suck like WC3.
Ergo you dont have a clue of what you are talking about since mbs doesnt make the game come even close to wc3. Yes i read your points and they are dumb, i can make just as dumb points:
*warcraft 2 didnt have hotkeys.
*warcraft 2 had much more macro than starcraft.
*Starcraft do have hotkeys, aka better UI.
*Starcraft is a better game than warcraft 2.
Ergo, better UI = better game, warcraft 2 and starcraft is basically the same game macro wise, just that in starcraft its easier.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
how would adding something that is in War3 and NOT in SC NOT make it closer to War3? It litterally is a tangible step in that direction since its a direct fucking link between the two games (if you add MBS).
You really are dense.
|
On October 05 2007 23:30 Aphelion wrote:
1.) We think War3 sucks.
2.) We feel a huge reason for that is because you don't have to look away from the army and are focused on it all day long.
3.) We think MBS in SC2 will cause the same thing.
4.) We think that would suck ass.
5.) We don't want SC2 to suck.
6.) We don't want MBS in SC2.
Ergo, we don't want MBS in SC2 because we think it will make SC2 suck like WC3.
I think you overuse "we" too much.
And if you read my post you would know that MBS has nothing to do with "not looking away from your army" in WC3. It's the low building/unit count that makes it, not MBS.
And InControl: Yes, MBS is something that will connect WC3 and SC2, just like the fact they're both RTSs and made by Blizzard. It will also connect it to a bunch of other games where you have MBS.
It doesn't mean anything at all.
And adding 3 things from WC3 (mbs + automining + togglable autocast) still leaves SC2 closer to SC.
What's important here is how will SC2 really play with MBS because only very few people here know that. In WC3 you don't use MBS and SC doesn't have it so it's more or less like it would be the first Blizzard game that will actually incorporate it and make use of it, it's a big unknown.
|
On October 06 2007 01:34 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
how would adding something that is in War3 and NOT in SC NOT make it closer to War3? It litterally is a tangible step in that direction since its a direct fucking link between the two games (if you add MBS).
You really are dense.
It makes it more like warcraft 3, the question is if that part of warcraft 3 is bad or not.
Its impossible to answer that question since mbs didnt affect warcraft 3 much at all.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
i dont feel like quoting you but look at the bottom of your post above mine.. you litterally say what I was talking about. Not how good the game is or whether or not sc becomes as "good" as war3 by adding mbs.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
uh having the ability to que up all your buildings and having your miners macro for themselves is a big difference.. if you do not grasp that you do not understand the differences between war3 and sc which would mean you are seriously illequipped to even be discussing this subject.
|
On October 06 2007 01:57 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
i dont feel like quoting you but look at the bottom of your post above mine.. you litterally say what I was talking about. Not how good the game is or whether or not sc becomes as "good" as war3 by adding mbs.
I said that mbs wouldnt make it come close to wc3, not that it wouldnt make it come closer.
Close=|=closer.
Like, if i took a step to the west i would be closer to new york than before, but i still wouldnt be close would i?
On October 06 2007 01:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
uh having the ability to que up all your buildings and having your miners macro for themselves is a big difference.. if you do not grasp that you do not understand the differences between war3 and sc which would mean you are seriously illequipped to even be discussing this subject.
Um, sure automining is a quite big thing, but the topic title is mbs.
And warcraft 3 didnt need mbs, you hardly ever used it except to focus fire with towers.
Trust me, you dont get warcraft 3 gameplay by adding mbs and worker rally to starcraft, same as you dont get starcraft by removing those from warcraft 3. If warcraft 3 didnt have them it would play exactly like its done now since you hardly make workers or multiple buildings in that game.
|
On October 06 2007 01:34 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
how would adding something that is in War3 and NOT in SC NOT make it closer to War3? It litterally is a tangible step in that direction since its a direct fucking link between the two games (if you add MBS).
You really are dense. maybe if you played warcraft 3 for like a day you'd see why war3 macro can't be compared to sc macro. war3 is a game where it's a BAD IDEA to expand. that says enough.
|
Zanno you went past iNc's point. He was saying that SC2 is getting closer to WC3 and now you're saying that WC3 macro can't be compared to SC macro.
iNc: SC2 goes WC3.
You: WC3 is not SC.
How can your statement be a counter-argument for iNc's statement? Says enough what?
If there is a connection between the two statements you may find it and explain it to us.
|
On October 06 2007 01:51 Manit0u wrote:
What's important here is how will SC2 really play with MBS because only very few people here know that.
Sorry to not quote the rest of your post, I don'thave enough time.
These few people who know how MBS plays were complaining about it, all of them. They say it makes SC2 boring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/3979/scwc3zp7.jpg)
